A TEXT BOOK OF MODERN
ENGLISH HISTORY
BOOK ONE
THE TUDOR AND STUART
PERIODS 1485-1714
I
By
G. W. SOUTHGATE, B.A.
ENGLAND: 1763-1914 . . 5 s. 9 d.
ENGLAND: 1667-1939 • • 5 s. Od.
ENGLISH ECONOMIC HISTORY
5 s. 6d.
Edition with summaries 6s. 6 d.
AN INTRODUCTION
TO ENGLISH HISTORY
VOL. I . To 1463 . . 3 s. 6d.
VOL. II . 1463-1763 . . 3 s. 6 d.
VOL. Ill . 1763 to present time . 5 s. 3 d.
0
A TEXT BOOK OF
MODERN ENGLISH HISTORY
with summaries
BOOK I . 1483-1714 4 s. 6d.
BOOK II . 1714-1946 5 s. 6 d.
SECTION I 14ZZ-1603 3 s. Od.
SECTION II 1603-1763 4 s. 0 d.
SECTION III 1763-1946 4 s. Od.
A POLITICAL HISTORY OF GREAT
BRITAIN, 1783-1914
with summaries
3 s. 6 d.
A TEXT BOOK OF
MODERN EUROPEAN HISTORY
with summaries
1433-1661 . . . 5 s. Od.
1643-1648 . . . 6s. Od.
1789-1943 . • . 4 s. 6 d.
A SHORTER EUROPEAN
HISTORY, 1756-1945
with summaries
3 s. 6 d.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE
with summaries
6s. Od.
THE UNITED STATES
2s. 9 d.
A TEXT BOOK OF MODERN
ENGLISH HISTORY
BOOK ONE
THE TUDOR AND
STUART PERIODS
1485-1714
- BY
GEORGE W. SOUTHGATE, B.A.
Illustrated with 15 maps
J. M. DENT AND SONS LTD.
BEDFORD ST., LONDON W.C.2
This book is copyright. It may not be
reproduced whole or in part by any method
without written permission. Application
should be made to the publishers:
J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Aldine House • Bedford St. • London
Made in Great Britain
by
The Temple Press • Letch worth * Herts
First published 1929
Revised edition 1938
Revised and reset 1951
PREFACE
In view of the existence of many textbooks of English history,
them in wide use and of great repute, the issue of a
netbook would seem to call for some justification. It has
been the aim of the author of this work to introduce certain
features not to be found in many of those at present in use.
A book which covers the whole of English history, or even
no more than the last four or five centuries, must be used by
the pupils for from three to five years. During this period
their general education will make substantial progress, and, if
the language of the textbook is uniform in style throughout,
it will be either too difficult for girls and boys of twelve or
too easy for those of fifteen or sixteen. In some schools the
difficulty is met by the use of different books in successive
forms, but this involves the disadvantage of lack of continuity
and of uniformity of style. The books do not, in fact, dovetail
on to each other. An endeavour has here been made to solve the
problem by the use of simpler language in the earlier chapters
than in those farther on, while in the volume dealing with
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which is to be pub-
lished shortly in continuation of the present work it is proposed
to make use of language suitable for the pupils in higher forms.
Many teachers will agree that the reading of a textbook in
which English history is treated fully, while contemporary
European events and movements are passed over lightly,
leads the pupils to suppose that this country was the political
centre of the world during the period under consideration.
While the fact that this is an English and not a European
history has not been lost sight of, a considerable amount of
space has been devoted to the treatment of European affairs,
and an attempt has been made to indicate, more completely
uian . is often done, the position occupied by England and
English affairs in the general history of the period.
The Tudor period has been treated with a view to con-
centrating attention on the dominant movement of the six-
teenth century — the Reformation. The movement itself has
v
VI
PREFACE
been described rather more fully than is usual in school books.
(There is a common, but erroneous, impression that girls and
beys are not interested in matters concerning religion.) The
events of the early part of the Tudor period are made to lead
up to the main theme and those of the latter part are treated
as naturally following from it, and it is hoped that this has been
done without doing violence to truth or historical perspective.
In like manner, the history of the Stuart period is concerned
with the constitutional struggle between Crown and Parlia-
ment for supremacy, and this has been kept in view throughout.
What is regarded by the author as unnecessary detail has
been excised. Every experienced teacher knows that it is
necessary, from time to time, to indicate to the pupils that
certain paragraphs of their textbooks should be studied with
close attention while others may be passed over lightly or
omitted altogether. It will be too much to expect that there
will be unanimity of opinion as to what is, and what is not,
important, and it is probable that most teachers who use this
book will be able to point out sections, and possibly whole
chapters, which in their opinion may be omitted without loss.
But it is hoped that nothing of vital importance has been
left out; and the omission of detail which is of minor interest
has made possible the inclusion of rather fuller treatment
than usual of some of the topics dealt with. It has been
thought advisable to increase the amount of detail in the latter
part of the book, and this course will be followed still farther
in the next volume, to which reference has been made above.
The economic factor has been kept in view throughout.
Certain chapters have been devoted to matters usually left to
works on economic history, and references to economic con-
siderations have been included in the general text.
The number of lesson periods assigned to the study of history
in a school of to-day is rarely adequate, and the teacher must use
his limited allowance with the utmost economy. It is hoped
that the summaries at the end of the book may be of use in
reducing the amount of time spent in the taking of notes, thus
making possible the setting of test and research essays and
other forms of historical exercise which under present conditions
are often crowded out or seriously curtailed.
The dominant consideration in the preparation of the maps
has been simplicity. It has been the author's experience
that complicated maps fail of their purpose, and each of the
PREFACE
vu
maps in this book has been designed to illustrate a definite
section of the work. Irrelevant names, therefore, have been
excluded. It is suggested that, when the book is used for
examination purposes, the maps may be found suitable for
In the text stress has been laid on the circumstances of
a battle and on its results, rather than upon its tactics, and
battle plans have not been included.
O. W .
September, 1929.
PREFACE TO 1938 EDITION
The need for a further reprint of this book has provided the
author with an opportunity of revising it. Some corrections
have been made, and a few changes have been made in the
text for the purpose of securing greater clarity of expression.
A Chronological Table has been added.
G. W. S.
July, 1938.
PREFACE TO THE 1951 EDITION
The resetting of the type of this book has afforded the author
a further opportunity of revising it. Little change, other than
in some details of punctuation and the use of capital letters,
has been made in the text, but the lay-out of the Summaries
has been improved.
G. W. S.
September, 1951.
CONTENTS
PAGE
V
Preface
Maps .
Kings and Queens
Chronological Table xiii
Text. Sum.
Introduction. The Beginning of Modern Times . xxi 285
THE TUDOR PERIOD
I. Geographical Discoveries in the Fifteenth
and Sixteenth Centuries . • •
II. Europe at the End of the Fifteenth Century
lit Henry VI1
IV. Early Tudor Foreign Policy
V. The Rivalry of France and Spain during the
First Part of the Sixteenth Century
VI. Wolsey - '
Viy T he Church Before the Reformation .
, VIIITThe Reformation **
<- IX. The Counter-Reformation .
X. The Reformation in England .
XI. Thomas Cromwell and the Dissolution of
the Monasteries .
XII. English Religion in the Middle of the
Tudor Period
XIII. The Condition of the People in Tudor
Times
XIV. Elizabeth’s Religious Settlement .
XV. England and Scotland in the Tudor Period
- XVI. Mary Stuart in England .
XVII. Maritime Activity in the Tudor Period .
XVIII. Elizabeth's Foreign Policy. '
XIX. The Elizabethan War with Spain
XX. Ireland During the Tudor Period
XXI. Parliament in Tudor Times
♦
3
286
12
288
17
289
22
290
27
291
3i
292
35
293
39
294
43
294
47
295
53
297
58
298
66
300
69
300
75
302
81
303
85
304
92
306
96
307
100
307
106
308
X
CONTENTS
THE STUART PERIOD
XXII. The Divine Right of Kings ...
XXIII. Religious Affairs in the Reign of James I.
XXIV. Crown and Parliament in the Stuart Period
XXV. The Parliaments of James I
XXVI. The Foreign Policy of James I .
XXVII. James I and His Ministers . • ,
XXV II L The Early Years of the Reign of Charles I .
XX DC. The Non- Parliament ary Rule of Charles I .
XXX. The Long Parliament: Before the Outbreak
of the Great Rebellion ....
XXXI. The Great Rebellion ....
XXXII. The Captivity and Death of Charles I .
XXXIII. Opposition to the Commonwealth
XXXIV. The Organisation of Puritan Rule .
XXXV. The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell
XXXVL The Fall of Puritan Rule
XXXVII. The Settlement of Affairs after the
Restoration
XXXVIII. Charles Hi'
XXXIX. James II
XL. Colonies and Trade in the Seventeenth
Century
XL I. The Revolution '
XL 1 1. The War of the League of Augsburg
XLIII. The Rule of William III .
XL IV. The Spanish Succession .
XLV. England and Scotland in the Seventeenth
Century
XLV I. Ireland in the Seventeenth Century
XLV 1 1. Party Struggles in the Reign of Queen Anne
page
Text.
Sum.
113
310
117
311
122
312
128
313
134
314
139
3i5
141
316
147
317
154
319
160
320
166
322
171
323
178
324
183
325
189
326
193
327
200
329
215
333
224
334
232
336
243
339
247
340
254
342
268
345
276
347
280
348
Genealogical Tables .
Index .
350
352
MAPS
PAGE
Exploration at the end of the Fifteenth Century . • 5
Europe in 1500
The War of the Holy League . ♦, • • • 2 5
Some Voyages of Famous English Seamen in Tudor Times . 89
The Course of the Armada 97
Ireland in Tudor Times ...•••• io 3
France in the Seventeenth Century * 3 6
The Four Scottish Invasions of England, 1640-51 . . 1 53
Places of Importance in the Great Rebellion . . .163
The Establishment of the Commonwealth . . • • 173
British Possessions in 1714 22 9
The Revolution
The War of the League of Augsburg ..... 245
The Spanish Empire in 1700 255
The War of the Spanish Succession 266
xi
KINGS AND QUEENS
TUDOR PERIOD
Henry VII
1485-1509
Henry VIII
. . . . 1509-1547
Edward VI.
• 1547-1553
Mary I
• 1553-1558
Elizabeth .
1558-1603
STUART PERIOD
James I
. . . . 1603-1625
Charles I .
. . . . 1625-1649
(The Commonwealth lasted from 1649 to 1660)
Charles II
. . ( nominally ) 1649-1685
(1 actually ) 1660-1685
James II
1685-1688
1 William III
1689-1702
' Mary II
. . . . 1689-1694
Anne
. . . . 1702-1714
•
xii
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1453. Turks captured Constantinople.
1460. Prince Henry the Navigator d.
1469. Ferdinand of Aragon m. Isabella of Castile.
1477. Charles the Rash d.
1480.
1483. Luther b.
1485. Battle of Bosworth. Richard III d.; Henry VII succ.
1486. Diaz rounded Cape of Good Hope.
1487. Lambert Simnel. Battle of Stoke.
1490.
1491. Charles VIII m. Anne of Brittany.
1492. Columbus’s first voyage.
Conquest of Granada.
Perkin Warbeck appeared.
Treaty of Etaples.
1493. Columbus’s second voyage.
1494. Poynings' Law.
1496. Magnus Intercursus.
1497. Perkin Warbeck captured.
Cabot’s voyage to Newfoundland.
1498. Columbus's third voyage.
Cabot's second voyage.
Da Gama reached India.
1499. Vespucci's voyage.
Warbeck and Warwick executed.
1500.
1501. Cabral's voyage.
Arthur, P. W., m. Catherine of Aragon.
1502. Columbus’s fourth voyage.
Arthur, P. W., d.
1503. James IV m. Margaret Tudor.
1506. Mai us Intercursus.
Columbus d.
1508. League of Cambray.
1509. Henry VII d.; Henry VIII succ.
Henry VIII m. Catherine of Aragon.
Battle of Diu.
Calvin b.
Luther a professor at Wittenberg.
Holy League.
1512- Campaign in Gascony.
1513* Campaign in Flanders. Battle of Spurs.
Battle of Flodden. James IV d.; James V succ.
• mm
X1H
XIV
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1513. Wolsey, Bishop of Toumai and Lincoln.
Balboa crossed Darien (Panama).
1514. Peace with France. Louis XII m. Mary Tudor.
Wolsey, Archbishop of York.
1515. Wolsey, Lord Chancellor and Cardinal.
Louis XII d.; Francis I sncc.
Battle of Marignano.
1516. Ferdinand of Aragon d .; Charles I succ.
1517. Luther's 95 theses.
1518. Wolsey, Papal Legate.
1519. Maximilian I, H.R.E., d.; Charles V became H.R.E.
Magellan's voyage round the world.
1520 . Luther excommunicated.
Field of the Cloth of Gold.
1521. War between France and Spain.
Diet of Worms.
1525. Battle of Pavia.
1527. Sack of Rome.
1528. Decretal Commission appointed to try the divorce case.
1529. Divorce case recalled to Rome.
Fall of Wolsey.
Reformation Parliament met.
1530 . Wolsey d.
1532. Act of Annates.
1533. Act of Appeals. Cranmer pronounced for the divorce.
1534. Act of Supremacy.
Calvin's The Institutes.
1536. Dissolution of smaller monasteries.
Pilgrimage of Grace.
Calvin at Geneva.
1537. Council of the North.
1538. Calvin exiled from Geneva.
Bible in English.
1539. Statute of Six Articles.
Dissolution of larger monasteries.
1540 . Henry VIII m. Anne of Cleves. Divorce.
Death of Thomas Cromwell.
1541. Calvin again at Geneva.
1542. Battle of Solway Moss. James V d.; Mary Stuart succ.; Mary of
Guise Regent.
Henry VIII, King of Ireland.
1544. Hertford invades Scotland.
I54*>. Capture of Boulogne.
Council of Trent met.
1546. Luther d.
1547. Henry VIII d.; Edward VI succ.; Somerset Protector.
Battle of Pinkie.
Francis I d.; Henry II succ.
1549. First Book of Common Prayer; Devon revolt.
Kett's revolt.
1550 .
1552. Second Book of Common Prayer.
XV
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1553. Edward VI d .; Mary I succ.
Lady Jane Grey.
1554. Mary m. Philip IL
1558. Loss of Calais.
Mary I d. ; Elizabeth succ.
Cardinal Pole d.
Mary Stuart m. Dauphin (Francis II).
1559. Act of Supremacy.
Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Peace between France and Spain.
Henry II d.; Francis II succ.
1560. Francis II d.
Mary of Guise d. Treaty of Edinburgh.
1561. Mary Stuart returned to Scotland.
1562. Hawkins's first voyage.
1563. Council of Trent ended.
1564. Hawkins's second voyage.
Calvin d.
1565. Mary Stuart m. Damley.
1566. Murder of Rizzio. James VI b.
1567. Murder of Damley. Mary Smart m. Bothwell.
Mary Stuart deposed and imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle.
James VI succ.
Hawkins's third voyage.
Shane O'Neill's revolt.
1568. Mary Stuart escaped. Battle of Langside. Flight into England.
1569. Revolt of Northern Earls.
1570. Elizabeth excommunicated.
1571. Ridolfi plot.
1572. Revolt of the Netherlands began.
Massacre of St. Bartholomew.
1575. Parker d.; Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury.
1576. Frobisher’s first voyage.
1577* Drake's voyage round the world.
Frobisher's second voyage.
Douai mission to England.
1578. Frobisher’s third voyage.
*579- Desmond revolt.
1580. Drake’s return; knighted.
Spanish conquest of Portugal.
Jesuit mission to England.
1583* Grindal d.; Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Throgmorton plot.
Gilbert's Newfoundland settlement.
1584. Spanish ambassador dismissed.
Plantation of Munster.
*585. Raleigh's first Virginia settlement.
Davis’s first voyage.
Leicester in the Netherlands.
1580. Babington plot.
Davis’s second voyage.
xvi CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1587. Execution of Mary Stuart.
Raleigh’s second Virginia settlement.
Davis’s third voyage.
Drake at Cadiz.
1588. Armada.
1589. Drake at Lisbon.
1590.
1591. The Revenge.
1596. Second Armada prepared.
1598. Philip II d.
Hugh O'Neill's revolt.
1600. East India Company founded.
1601. Poor Law.
1602. Dutch East India Company founded.
1603. Elizabeth d.; James I succ.
Millenary Petition.
1604. Hampton Court Conference.
Whitgift d. ; Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Peace with Spain.
James’s First Parliament.
1605. Gunpowder Plot.
1606. Laws against Roman Catholics.
1607. Proposed union with Scotland.
Bates's Case.
Hugh O’Neill’s revolt.
Virginia settlement.
1610. Great Contract.
Bancroft d. ; Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Bishops in Scottish Church.
Plantation of Ulster.
Henry IV of France d.; Louis XIII succ.
1 61 1. Authorised Version of the Bible.
James's First Parliament dissolved.
1612. English factory at Surat.
1613. Frederick, Elector Palatine m. Princess Elizabeth.
1614. Addled Parliament.
1616. Raleigh's expedition to Guiana.
1618. Execution of Raleigh.
Beginning of Thirty Years War.
1620. Pilgrim Fathers.
1621. James’s Third Parliament. Impeachment of Bacon.
1623. Visit of Charles and Buckingham to Madrid.
Massacre of Amboyna.
1624. James’s Fourth Parliament. Impeachment of Middlesex.
Statute against monopolies.
War with Spain.
1625. James I d.; Charles I succ.
Charles m. Henrietta Maria.
Charles's First Parliament.
Cadiz expedition.
Barbados settlement.
1626. Charles’s Second Parliament. Impeachment of Buckin gham .
• •
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1627. War with France. Rochelle expedition.
1628. Charles’s Third Parliament. Petition of Right.
Murder of Buckingham.
Wentworth, President of the Council of the North.
1629. Charles’s Third Parliament dissolved.
Massachusetts settlement.
1630 .
1632. Maryland settlement.
1633. Abbot d .; Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Wentworth, Lord Deputy of Ireland.
Charles crowned at Holyrood Abbey.
1637. Prayer Book for Scottish Church.
1638. General Assembly of Scottish Church at Glasgow.
Scottish Bishops and Prayer Book abolished.
1639. First Bishops’ War.
English factory at Madras.
1640 . Short Parliament.
Second Bishops' War.
Long Parliament.
Impeachment of Strafford and Laud.
1641. Execution of Strafford.
Abolition of prerogative courts.
Triennial Act.
Root and Branch Bill.
Charles visited Scotland. The Incident.
Grand Remonstrance.
Irish revolt.
1642. Attempted arrest of the Five Members.
Nineteen Propositions.
Outbreak of the Great Rebellion. Battle of Edgehill.
1643. Siege of Gloucester.
Battles of Chalgrove and Newbury.
Solemn League and Covenant.
Ironsides.
Louis XIII d .; Louis XIV succ.
1644. Siege of York. Battle of Marston Moor.
1645. Execution of Laud.
New Model Army.
Self-denying Ordinance.
Battle of Naseby.
1646. End of Great Rebellion. King surrendered to Scots.
1647. The Engagement.
1648. End of Thirty Years War.
Second Civil War.
Pride’s Purge.
1649. Charles I d.; Charles II succ. de jure.
Revolt of the Levellers.
Cromwell’s Irish campaign.
1650 . Rising of Montrose in Scotland.
Cromwell's Scottish campaign. Battle of Dunbar.
1651. Battle of Worcester.
Navigation Act.
XV 11
XV 111
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1652. Dutch War.
1653. Expulsion of the Rump.
Little Parliament.
Instrument of Government. Cromwell, Protector.
1654. Peace with the Dutch.
First Protectorate Parliament.
1655. Major-Generals.
Capture of Jamaica.
1656. Second Protectorate Parliament.
Humble Petition and Advice.
1657. Destruction of Spanish fleet at Santa Cruz.
1658. Battle of the Dunes. Capture of Dunkirk.
Oliver Cromwell d .; Richard Cromwell, Protector.
1659. Richard Cromwell res .
Restoration of the Rump.
1660 . Restoration and dissolution of Long Parliament.
Declaration of Breda.
Restoration of the monarchy.
Juxon, Archbishop of Canterbury.
1661. Cavalier Parliament.
Corporation Act.
Irish Act of Settlement.
Savoy Conference.
1662. Act of Uniformity. Expulsion of Puritan ministers.
Sale of Dunkirk.
1663. Juxon d.; Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Settlement of the Carolinas.
1664. Conventicle Act.
French East India Company founded
Capture of New Amsterdam.
1665. Five Mile Act.
Dutch War. Battle of Lowestoft.
Irish Act of Explanation.
Great Plague.
1666. Great Fire of London.
1667. Dutch at Chatham.
Treaty of Breda.
Fall of Clarendon.
Cabal.
1668. Triple Alliance.
English factory at Bombay.
1670 . Treaty of Dover.
1672. Dutch War. Battle of Southwold Bay.
1673. Declaration of Indulgence. Test Act.
Fall of the Cabal. Danby in power.
William of Orange, Stadtholder of the Netherlands.
1674. Peace with the Dutch.
1675. French factory at Pondicherri.
1677. William of Orange m. Mary of York.
1678. Popish Plot. Parliamentary Test Act.
Treaty of Nijmegen.
XIX
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
l679 ’ Ca^dfer^ParlLment dissolved. First Short Parliament.
Habeas Corpus Act.
Exclusion Bill.
1680 . Second Short Parliament.
1681. Third Short Parliament.
Pennsylvania settlement.
1683. Rye House Plot.
1685. Charles II d .; James II succ.
Argyll's rebellion.
Monmouth’s rebellion.
1686. Hales's case. .
Ecclesiastical Commission Court.
1687. Declaration of Indulgence.
1688. Trial of the Seven Bishops.
Birth of the Prince of Wales.
Invitation to William. His arrival.
Flight of James II.
1680. The Convention. Declaration of Right.
James II dep.; William III and Mary II succ.
Bill of Rights.
Toleration Act.
Mutiny Act.
Scottish Claim of Right.
Battle of Killiecrankie.
James II in Ireland. Dublin Parliament.
Sieges of Derry and Enniskillen.
War of the League of Augsburg began.
1690 . Battle of the Boyne.
Battle of Beachy Head.
Battle of Fleurus.
1691. Treaty of Limerick.
1692. Massacre of Glencoe.
Land tax established.
Battle of La Hogue.
Battle of Steinkirk. French capture of Namur.
1693. Battle of Landen.
Loss of Smyrna fleet.
National Debt.
1694. Mary II d.
Bank of England founded.
English attack on Toulon.
1695. William recaptured Namur.
New coinage.
Darien Scheme proposed.
Irish penal laws against Roman Catholics.
1696. Fenwick’s plot.
Junto.
English factory at Fort William.
1697. Treaty of Ryswick.
1698. First Partition Treaty.
XX CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
1699. Final failure of Darien Scheme.
Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria d.
1700. Fall of the Junto.
Duke of Gloucester d.
Second Partition Treaty.
Charles II of Spain d.
1701. Act of Settlement.
James II d. Louis XIV recognised Pretender as King of England.
1702. William III d.; Anne succ.
War of the Spanish Succession began.
Failure of negotiations for Anglo-Scottish Union.
1703. Scottish Act of Security. Vetoed.
1704. Scottish Act of Security passed.
Battle of Blenheim.
Capture of Gibraltar.
1706. Battle of Ramillies.
Battle of Turin.
Negotiations for Anglo-Scottish Union.
1707. Union of England and Scotland.
1708. Battle of Oudenarde.
Capture of Minorca.
1709. Battle of Malplaquet.
1710. Fall of the Whigs.
1711. Charles VI, Emperor.
1713. Treaty of Utrecht.
1714. Anne d.; George I succ.
INTRODUCTION
THE BEGINNING OF MODERN TIMES
It is well known that men have existed in this world for a very
long time — perhaps for 100,000 years, possibly much longer.
Very little is known of the story of the human race during this
long period. It was on the whole a time of progress, though of
very slow progress. Men learned to make fire, to cook food, to
build huts, to tame animals, to till the soil, and to do many other
things. At length the art of writing was invented, and it became
possible for men to record on papyrus, on parchment, or on
paper, the story of great events. Only when men learned the
art of writing did history have its beginning. The period before
this is said to be prehistoric.
History proper covers some thousands of years, and it is
usual to divide it into three parts — Ancient history, the Middle
Ages, and Modern history. It might be thought that these were
times of continuous progress — that the Middle Ages were more
advanced than ancient times, and modern times than the Middle
Ages — but this is not the case. Some of the peoples of ancient
times, Assyrians and Ch aldea ns. Persians and Egyptians,
Greeks 'fnd Romans, were highly civilised, though their way of
lif&Twas very different from anything that exists to-day. They
knew much less science than is known now, and they did not
possess the machines and engines which are so common to-day.
But in some other ways they equalled, and even excelled, the
men of our time. They built great cities and established
powerful empires, their art is still admired, and their literature
is still studied.
(The period of about a thousand years between ancient history
and modem history is known as the Middle Ages. ' Ancient
civilisation was overthrown by barbarian peoples who invaded
the Roman Empire and destroyed it, peoples who settled and
founded kingdoms in the lands which had hitherto been Roman
provinces. /It would not be true to state that no progress was
made during this thousand years, but at all events the advance
xxi
XXII
INTRODUCTION
was very slow. Men did not aim at making progress or at
improving the condition of the world. Without thinking much
about the matter they were satisfied to leave things as they were.
During the Middle Ages men did not often act as individuals.
In nearly every way a man was a member of a group, to which
he was expected to be faithful and obedient. In religion all
men belonged to the Catholic Church, which expected them to
obey its rules and believe what it taught, informing them
that only in that way could they be saved. They certainly
understood that they could not obtain salvation by thinking for
themselves about religion. A trained workman would belong to
the gild (or society) of his craft, and was expected to be more
eager for the reputation of the gild than for his own well-
being. A trader belonged to a merchant gild, and a merchant
who ventured overseas was probably a member of one of the
companies which came into existence towards the close of the
Middle AgesJ Most men worked on the land and occupied
some place, high or low, in the great feudal system which
existed in western Europe. In every relation of life a man
found himself belonging to some gild or society or other
body, and such groups were always more important than their
members, upon whose obedience they insisted.
There was little education in the Middle Ages. Few men
could read and write. Even kings and nobles were sometimes
ignorant of these accomplishments. ' Priests and monks,
indeed, had some education, and in the larger monasteries
schools were carried on, but the boys who attended them were
generally intended for the Church. The one subject of hard
study in the monastic schools was Latin, which was, of course,
the language in which Church services were conducted. It
was the only language in which books were written in any of
the countries of western Europe. Such books were rare, as
they had to be copied by hand, but if they passed from one
country to another no translation was needed. The only
people who could read them were those who were familiar
with the language in which they were written. Latin was, in
fact, a universal language for learned men.
Science was in its infancy. The Church did not favour
scientific research, and the pioneers of scientific discovery
risked the accusation of witchcraft. The study of the sky and
of the heavenly bodies gave rise to astrology. The astrologers
claimed to be able to foretell the future by casting horoscopes.
XX111
INTRODUCTION
They assumed that the position of stars and planets at the
moment of a man’s birth would affect the course of his life.
Alchemy was the forerunner of modern chemistry, but the
alchemists recognised only four elements earth, air, fire, and
water— not one of which is regarded as an element by the
chemists of to-day^ These medieval scientists aimed at dis-
covering an elixir of life, a liquid which would postpone death
or prevent it altogether, the philosopher’s stone, which would
turn other substances into gold, and a universal solvent.
The modern system of states hardly existed in Europe in
the Middle Ages. It is true that such countries as England,
Scotland, France, Spain, and Germany existed, and that they
were inhabited by different nations. But the Christian world
was regarded, in a vague way, as a single state with two heads,
the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. The Emperor was
supposed to be superior in rank to kings, although he had no
real authority over them, and the Pope was the spiritual lord
of all Christian men. People thought more of the class in life
to which they belonged than of their nationality. An English
knight would recognise a Spanish knight as belonging to his
own social class, merchants of different countries met on an
equal footing, priests of different races had much in common,
and even serfs of different lands would, if they had met, have
realised that they suffered under similar burdens.
The movement which marks the close of the Middle Ages and
the beginning of modern times is called the Renaissance, and it
occurred mainly in the fifteenth century. The Renaissance
was a revival of learning, but it was more than that. It was a
reawakening of the world from the slumber which had lasted
throughout the Middle Ages. Men ceased to be satisfied with
the condition of things as they were. The desire to make
progress was reawakened.
The learning which was revived in the fifteenth century was
classical i learning. The Turks captured Constantinople in
1453, and before and after this event many Greek scholars left
the east of Europe and found their way to the important cities
of the West, to Florence and Bologna, to Paris and Oxford and
many other places. Under their influence the study of Greek
language and literature, which had been all but forgotten during
the Middle Ages, was renewed, and at the same time interest
was revived in the literature of the Romans. Thus began a
period of great intellectual activity, in which men began
xxiv INTRODUCTION
to think for themselves, instead of believing things on the
authority of others. Certain great inventions which occurred
about this time had their influence on the movement. The
mariner's compass was invented, and sailors could undertake
longer voyages than had hitherto been possible. In earlier
times sailors were afraid to venture far out of sight of land
because they could steer only by observing the position of the
sun by day, or of the stars by night, and if the sky should be
overcast they had no means whatever of determining the direc-
tion in which they were sailing. After the compass came into
1 use exploration began, and the old ideas about the world’s size
and shape were proved to be false. When the telescope was
invented, a century later, observers were enabled to scan the sky
and to make a real beginning of the science of astronomy. The
invention of printing made books cheaper and more plentiful.
Without this aid to study it would have been hardly possible
for the new learning to spread very far.
In Italy the Renaissance led to a great development of the
arts of painting and sculpture, and to much literary activity.
The works of poets and philosophers enriched Italian hterature,
while the artists produced masterpieces that are to this day the
glory of Italian galleries, churches, and palaces. Farther north
the Renaissance took another form. The study of Greek
encouraged men to read the Greek New Testament, and they
began to discuss, and then to doubt, the doctrines of the
Church. They felt that much of what the Church taught was
not justified by what was in the Bible. They criticised the
lives of the clergy, which were not modelled upon the life
of Christ. They asserted that the authority claimed by the
Pope was not based upon: what was to be found in Scripture.
Such thoughts led men to cast off the Pope's rule, and brought
about the Reformation. But the Reformation would not have
occurred in the sixteenth century if the Renaissance had not
come in the fifteenth. Men had to learn to think for themselves
before they could criticise the condition of the Church.
I
THE TUDOR PERIOD
CHAPTER I
GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES IN THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH
CENTURIES
Until less than five hundred years ago men knew very little
about the earth on which they lived. Even to-day there is a
good deal that is not known. There are, indeed, no longer
any large stretches of land waiting to be discovered, but much
of what is known is not fully explored, and wide expanses of
water are still uncharted. Even to-day men know very little
of the interior of the ball on which their lives are passed. It
is nearly four thousand miles from the surface to the centre
of the earth, and except for a few hundred yards of this distance
our knowledge of it is the merest guesswork. Men are able,
however, to make maps and charts of the surface of the earth.
Its size is known, and it is possible to measure distances from
point to point on its surface accurately. In the fifteenth
century most men believed the earth to be flat, with an endless
river, called the Ocean, flowing round it. It was supposed to
be something like an island in the middle of a pond. The
fate of any man who might venture to cross the “ocean" to
find what was on the farther edge was, presumably, to fall
over, but as nobody had been able to go across and return
nothing was known. It was also believed that far away to the
south the heat of the sun was so great as to make the water boil
and to turn the people who lived in such regions black. It is
right to add that more thoughtful people did not accept these
ideas. Some of them even held the view that the world might
be a globe and that it might be possible by travelling by sea
and land in one direction to return to the point of departure.
But even they had no idea of the great distance involved, and
thought it would be only a very few days’ sail westward from
Europe to Asia.
The only parts of the world that were well known in the
fuddle Ages were Europe, south-west Asia and northern
Africa. Even the extreme north of Europe was barely known,
3
THE TUDOR PERIOD
4
while Russia was not regarded as part of Europe at all. South-
west Asia was well-known, and merchants travelled to India,
but the remainder of the continent was quite unknown except
through the tales of a few daring travellers such as Marco Polo,
who had penetrated to China. Northern Africa was known
only as far inland as the desert border. The greater part of
Africa and the whole of Australia and America were entirely
unknown. A glance at the map of the world will show how
small a part of the surface was fully known to civilised man
until about four centuries ago.
It may seem remarkable that adventurous men had not
explored farther afield and made discoveries before this time.
The ships that were built in the Middle Ages were, however,
quite small, and were suitable for navigation only in sheltered
waters, such as the Mediterranean and other seas that wash the
shores of Europe. Until near the close of the Middle Ages no
compass existed to guide the mariner who ventured out of sight
of land, and though the master of a ship might steer in clear
weather by observing sun and stars he was wholly without
guidance in time of storm. It is known, indeed, that Scan-
dinavian adventurers reached Iceland, Greenland, and the coast
of North America, which they called Vinland, hundreds of
years before Columbus crossed the Atlantic, but they had no
idea that their remote settlement was part of a vast continent,
and its very memory was almost lost.
The Greek historian, Herodotus, tells of a criminal in ancient
times who was pardoned for his misdeeds upon undertaking
to sail past the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) and to
explore the African coast. Long afterwards he returned,
stating that he had travelled so far south that he had passed
the sun, which shone in the northern sky at midday. His tale
was not believed, and he was impaled. Yet we know that
the sun appears in the northern sky at midday to all people
who pass the Equator, as he and his companions evidently
did. .
The countries which bordered the Mediterranean Sea were
the most important in the ancient world and in the Middle
Ages, and the greater part of the world's trade was carried on
in the Mediterranean. The ports which were on or near the
Mediterranean, such as Marseilles, Genoa, Venice, Con-
stantinople, and Alexandria, were important and prosperous
cities, while the countries farther north were regarded as being
Exploration at the end of the Fifteenth Century
6
THE TUDOR PERIOD
on the border of the known world. In the later Middle Ages
the two chief Italian ports, Venice and Genoa, gained much
wealth from Asiatic trade. The Genoese traded with Con-
stantinople, where a special part of the city was assigned to
their merchants. Caravans from Russia and Central Asia
reached the shores of the Black Sea, and goods from these
regions reached Constantinople and were purchased by
Genoese traders. The Venetians specialised in trade with
India, and two routes were open to them. ' They proceeded
to the Levant, across the Syrian desert to the Persian Gulf,
and thence to India, t But they made use to a greater extent of
the route through Egypt and by way of the Red Sea to India.
They had to pay the Egyptian ruler for the privilege of passing
through his land, but in return he prevented the merchants
of other nations from using this route. The Venetians, there-
fore, held a monopoly of Indian trade, and the produce of the
East could be obtained only through them. They could and
did charge very high prices for their wares and became very
rich on the profits of the trade. Venice was a city of merchant
princes.
Venetian merchants sold their Oriental products in the
Netherlands. They had a depot at Bruges, to which their
goods were sent. They travelled over the Alps by the Brenner
Pass and followed the Rhine until they reached the Netherlands.
Merchants from various cities of northern Europe — from
Hull and London, Hamburg and Rouen, Amsterdam and
Christiania — assembled at Bruges to buy from Venetian mer-
chants at Venetian prices. The merchandise from India for
which there was so much demand included silks and fine cloths,
various articles of luxury, and, above all, spices, which were
commonly used to make meat palatable. From Bruges such
goods found their way to every city and town in northern
Europe, where they were sold by retail. There was a second
way of reaching the Netherlands from Venice. Every year a
fleet was fitted out and laden, and sailed through the western
Mediterranean and the Straits of Gibraltar to the English
Channel. The vessels here parted company and visited the
ports of southern England and northern France, where business
was done for some days. The fleet then reassembled and
completed the voyage to the Netherlands.
Dissatisfaction was frequently felt, and occasionally
expressed, at the high prices charged by the Venetians.
7
GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES
Nothing could be done, however, since Venetian merchants
would not undersell one another, and they alone could reach
India If the Venetian monopoly was to be broken, another
route to India must be discovered. In the fifteenth century
the question of the finding of a new route to India was often
discussed. Some men favoured the idea of sailing to the west,
but to most people it seemed foolish, and certain to fail.
Another idea was to explore the coast of Africa in order to
find out whether it was possible to sail round it, and so reach
India.
The Portuguese were well situated for makmg the attempt,
and during the fifteenth century Portuguese mariners dis-
played a good deal of enterprise. Prince Henry the Navigator
encouraged the sailors of Portugal to proceed ever farther
south, exploring the African coast. He was not trying to find
a new route to the East but wanted his men to open up trade
with the natives of West Africa. He was pleased when his*,
captains returned with ivory and gold-dust, and doubly
pleased when they brought a few negroes to be sold as slaves.
Prince Henry died in 1460, but the exploration of the African
coast continued, and in i486 Bartholomew Diaz reached and
rounded the cape which he called the Cape of Storms, but which
upon his return the King of Portugal renamed the Cape of
Good Hope. In 1497 Vasco da Gama followed Diaz, and
went farther. He spent the Christmas of 1497 ashore in a
region which has since been called Natal. In 1498 he reached
Calicut, on the west coast of India, and the problem was solved.
He found the natives by no means willing to trade, but a
show of force enabled him to secure cargoes for his ships. The
Portuguese rejoiced when he returned, and in 1501 a large
fleet sailed for India under Cabral. Driven out of its course
by storm, it touched land which was afterwards known as
Brazil. India was reached after long delays, and after much
threatening and some fighting Cabral was allowed to trade.
With his vessels laden he returned home, and year after year
other men followed and developed this new and distant com-
merce. By 1505 the Portuguese were established in a market
for Oriental goods at Antwerp, which was a definite rival to
that of the Venetians at Bruges, and for the first time the
lordly Italian merchants felt the effect of competition. Venice
naturally feared for her prosperity, and in 1509 a battle occurred
in the Arabian Sea near Diu between Venetians, assisted by
8
THE TUDOR PERIOD
Egyptians, and Portuguese, the latter winning. During the
sixteenth century the Portuguese established a number of small
settlements on the coasts of India and Persia and elsewhere.
Yet although the Cape route appeared to be open to all, it
was used only by the Portuguese for a hundred years after
its discovery.
The idea of sailing west to reach India had been brought
forward frequently during the fifteenth century. It was
thought, however, that an island, Atlantis, existed in the
ocean midway between Europe and Asia, and occasional efforts
had been made by daring navigators to discover Atlantis.
This, once discovered, would become the base for the second
part of the voyage to Asia. These attempts brought no result.
The adventurers, after cruising about for a few days and fading
to find the object of their search, would return home. Chris-
topher Columbus was a Genoese who fully believed in the
possibility of reaching Asia by sailing west, but he was not
convinced of the existence of Atlantis. He showed his wisdom
by proposing to abandon the search for the island and to make
straight for the greater goal. For some years he tried to secure
the patronage of one European court after another, and at
length Isabella, Queen of Castile, took pity on him and agreed
to fit out an expedition which should sail under his command.
He sailed in 1492, and after a voyage of five weeks reached
certain islands now known to belong to the Bahamas, and
proceeded to Cuba and Hayti. During the outward voyage,
which was much longer than he anticipated, only his rigid
determination and iron nerve kept him from returning, especi-
ally in face of the mutiny of his men. He took on board some
of the products and a few of the natives of the islands at which
he touched, and with these he returned to Spain, confident that
he had reached the islands which lie to the south-east of Asia,
which were known under the general name of the “ Indies."
His second voyage, in 1493, resulted in the discovery of
Jamaica, but again he failed to touch the mainland of Asia!
Five years later, in 1498, he made a third attempt, bearing
farther south this time, in order to avoid the island group and
reach the mainland. This resulted in his touching the main-
land, not, indeed, of Asia, but of South America, at what is
now Venezuela. On his fourth voyage, in 1502, he reached
Honduras. At the time of his death in 1506 he was ignorant
of the fact that the newly-discovered lands, which he had
9
GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES
naturally referred to as the “ Indies/’ were not parts of Asia
at all, but of a hitherto unknown continent.
Other adventurers followed Columbus. Amerigo Vespucci
explored a large part of the coast-line of Central America and
the northern part of South America. Ponce de Leon dis-
covered Florida, and Balboa crossed the Isthmus of Panama
and reached the Pacific, which he thought must be a large lake
in the interior of Asia.
But the work of the Spanish explorers made possible the
construction of maps and charts of these regions, which did
not correspond with what was known of the Asiatic coast. By
this time, too, the Portuguese had sailed along the south-east
coast of Asia as far as Canton, and they never came across any
trace of Spanish explorers! The Spanish in their explorations
never met with the Portuguese! By 1517 ^ was becoming
generally recognised that Spanish and Portuguese were in
different parts of the world and that what Columbus had
found was not Asia. The new Spanish discoveries were called
America, after Amerigo Vespucci, whose work was much
better known than that of Columbus. The island group had
been so long referred to as the Indies that it continued to bear
that name; it was, however, called the West Indies to distinguish
it from the East Indies, of Asia.
Magellan, a Portuguese in the service of Spain, set out in
1519 to solve the mystery which still existed. Bearing south-
wards, he reached the southern point of the American continent
after many weeks and passed through the strait which is called
after him. Then began a weary voyage across the Pacific
Ocean, and after months of sailing he reached the Philippine
Islands. He was killed in some fighting with natives in the
Ladrone Islands, but his ships continued their voyage. They
rounded the Cape of Good Hope and returned to Spain after an
absence of three years. The voyage was of immense impor-
tance. It proved the world to be a globe and to be far larger
than any one had hitherto thought possible. And a new route
to India had been discovered ! But it was of such great length
as to be entirely useless for the purpose of trade.
If Spanish exploration had failed to find a useful route to
India it had discovered something of much greater value.
A new continent whose very existence was hitherto unsuspected
lay to the west of Europe, and Spain claimed it as hers by right
of discovery. It could hardly be expected that other European
B
IO
THE TUDOR PERIOD
nations would allow Spain, without challenge, to retain the
whole of the New World for ever. Yet in 1492 the Pope issued
a declaration that, if a line were drawn north and south one
hundred leagues west of Cape Verde Islands, all new lands
found to the west of that line were to be Spanish, while all
to the east were to belong to Portugal. Spain and Portugal
in the following year made a treaty by which they agreed to
move the line of division farther west — to three hundred and
seventy leagues west of Cape Verde Islands. This change
afterwards gave the Portuguese a claim to Brazil, which was
not known at the time, it being discovered by Cabral in 1501,
as related above. These arrangements left most of America
in Spanish hands, and when it was found that gold and silver
and precious stones existed in certain parts the Spanish were
eager to make settlements. Several colonies were established
in Central and South America and the foundation was laid of
a great Spanish colonial empire, which was valued chiefly on
account of the precious metals found there. Spanish colonies
were not allowed to trade with any part of the world except
Spain. The produce of the gold mines was transported to
Spain every year in a fleet sent across specially for it. In the
years to come, when Spain was fighting against Protestants
in various countries, this American gold helped to pay for
her wars.
The English had taken little part in this exploration. At
this time they were an agricultural people, and very few of
them were seafarers. There were few English ships, and
English overseas trade was carried on in foreign vessels. But
an Italian, John Cabot, with his son Sebastian Cabot, received
permission from Henry VII to sail west from Bristol. He made
two voyages, in 1497 and 1498; he discovered Newfoundland
on the first, and reached the mainland on the second. No
English settlements followed at this time, but Cabot's dis-
covery of Newfoundland was used later on as the basis of a
claim to that island.
The importance of the geographical exploration of this
period is very great. A new way to India had been discovered
which was to be the chief route until the opening of the Suez
Canal in 1869. A new world had been found which would
ultimately equal, and perhaps excel, the old world in wealth
and importance. The Mediterranean lost some of its impor-
tance, and the great cities which had flourished on the trade of
II
GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES
the medieval world fell into decay. In consequence of these
discoveries the world's trade, whether with America or with
Asia, was carried on the Atlantic, and the lands which faced
the Atlantic benefited from the new conditions of trade.
England, France, Spain, and Portugal were destined to be
among the most important countries of modern times instead
of being, as they were in the Middle Ages, on the fringe of the
known world. Men’s ideas, too, were widened. They found
that much of what had passed for geographical knowledge
was false. They were encouraged by the success of this
exploration to continue it in other directions. There has never
been a time since the beginning of the sixteenth century when
men have not been exploring some part or other of the earth’s
surface, and if the work is now slowing down it is only because
it is approaching completion. In other ways people were
tempted no longer to take old ideas for granted but to test
them, to find out where they were false, and so to extend
knowledge.
CHAPTER II
EUROPE AT THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
A map of Europe at the end of the fifteenth century, showing
the countries which were then to be found in it, would not
correspond very closely with a map of the continent at the
present day. Russia was hardly regarded as part of Europe at
all, and the Balkan Peninsula was part of the Turkish Empire,
which had been spreading northwards towards Hungary since
the Turkish conquest of Constantinople in 1453.
Central Europe was covered by the Holy Roman Empire.
Many centuries earlier the Roman Empire had extended round
the Mediterranean, and in the fourth century it had been
divided into two parts — east and west. The Western Empire
was soon broken up, but it was revived in 800, as the Holy
Roman Empire, by Charles the Great. Since that time many
changes had taken place in its extent and character, but it was
still regarded as the successor of the world-wide empire of the
Caesars. By this time it corresponded roughly with modern
Germany, but it extended farther to the west and south and
not so far to the east. It included the Netherlands, Switzerland
and Austria, but it did not include Prussia. It contained nearly
three hundred states, of which a few were large and powerful;
most of them, however, were quite small, and some were no
more than single towns, which were called Free Imperial
Cities. The states were under rulers who bore various titles —
kings, dukes, archdukes, margraves, landgraves, counts, arch-
bishops, bishops, abbots — and some of the cities were ruled by
their leading burghers. The princes of the Empire possessed
a good deal of power and ruled their states as they chose, the
Emperor having very little real authority over them. The
Holy Roman Emperor held a position of great dignity. He
was superior in rank to kings, and was regarded as Lord of the
World. But his real power as Emperor did not correspond
with his dignity, and such authority as he might possess came
from his other possessions, and not from the Imperial crown.
12
i3
FIFTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPE
The position of Emperor was not, as other monarchies were,
hereditary. When the Emperor died, seven of the greatest
princes of the Empire met at Frankfort and chose his successor.
These seven princes were called Electors, and were naturally
looked upon as of much greater importance than the other
princes. They were the Archbishops of Mayence, Cologne,
and Treves, the Margrave of Brandenburg, the Duke of Saxony,
the King of Bohemia, and the Count Palatine of the Rhine.
They might choose as Emperor one of themselves, or another
prince of the Empire, or a king or prince from outside the
Empire — any one, in fact. Sometimes, but not always, they
chose the son of the late Emperor, and as time went on this
practice became usual, so that for the last three hundred years
of its existence the Imperial crown remained in the possession
of one family — the Hapsburgs — a family which was said to
have "not a hereditary right to the Empire, but a hereditary
right to be elected to it." While, however, the Emperor as
such had great dignity but little power he might have other
possessions which would make him very powerful. As
Emperor, he could not compel the Empire to go to war. This
could be done only by a Diet, a meeting at which all ruling
princes were entitled to be present. If the Diet decided that
the Empire should go to war, each state had to send a con-
tingent to the Imperial army. It should be added that the
princes often made war on each other — not because they had
a legal right to do so, but because the Emperor was powerless
to prevent them. The Emperor from 1493 till 1519 was Maxi-
milian of Hapsburg, Archduke of Austria. He had married
Mary of Burgundy, who possessed the Netherlands, which,
therefore, passed under his direct rule.
Throughout the Middle Ages, France had contained a
number of large provinces which were ruled by dukes or counts.
For a long time the power of the French kings over these great
personages was not very great, and French nobles ruled their
provinces with almost as little interference from the King of
France as German princes had from the Emperor. But as
time went on the French kings became more powerful. Many
of the provinces came under direct royal rule because the line
of noble rulers came to an end or because a noble rebelled
and was beaten, thus forfeiting his province. The last of the
great provinces which were almost independent of France
were Burgundy and Brittany. Burgundy was ruled by a line
THE TUDOR PERIOD
14
of powerful dukes who held possessions in the west of the
Empire as well as in France. The last Duke of Burgundy,
Charles the Rash, hoped to extend his dominions, to link them
together and to make them into a kingdom between France
and the Empire extending from the North Sea to the Alps,
and possibly to the Mediterranean. But Charles was killed
in battle in 1477 and he left no son, so that Burgundy was
recovered by the French crown. The last Duke of Brittany
died in 1488. He left a daughter, Anne, and as female suc-
cession was recognised in the duchy she succeeded her father.
But the French King invaded Brittany and compelled the
Duchess to marry him in 1491, so that the province passed
under royal rule. By the end of the fifteenth century France
was united under the rule of its king, and was likely to become
one of the great powers of Europe in the sixteenth century.
The Netherlands (the modern Holland and Belgium) con-
sisted of seventeen provinces of the Empire, which had been
at one time under separate rulers, but which had become part
of the dominions of the Dukes of Burgundy. At the death of
Charles the Rash they passed to his daughter Mary. For some
years they were ruled by his widow, Margaret, an English
princess of the House of York, on behalf of her stepdaughter.
But Mary married the Emperor Maximilian, and the Nether-
lands became part of the Hapsburg dominions. They were
by far the most important manufacturing region in Europe at
this time, and their many cities were places of great wealth.
Spain throughout the Middle Ages had contained a number
of small kingdoms. At one time nearly the whole country
had been under Moorish rule, but the Moors were now limited
to the kingdom of Granada, and the rest of the Iberian
peninsula was divided into the states of Portugal, Castile, and
Aragon, a number of smaller kingdoms having been conquered
by one or another of these. Portugal has remained separate
from Spain to this day, except for a short period from 1580 to
1640. But towards the end of the fifteenth century Aragon
was under the rule of King Ferdinand and Castile under that
of Queen Isabella. Ferdinand married Isabella in 1469, and
this led to the union of the two kingdoms and the foundation
of a kingdom of Spain. In 1492, the year in which Columbus
nr crossed the Atlantic, Ferdinand conquered Granada and
excelled the Moors from Spain. By the end of the fifteenth
century Spain was a united kingdom which was likely to
FIFTEENTH-CENTURY EUROPE 15
become one of the great powers of Europe in the sixteenth
century. . ,
Italy was not united. In the Middle Ages it had been part
of the Holy Roman Empire, but the Emperor's rule was no
longer recognised, and it contained a number of separate
states. Central Italy was under the rule of the Pope, whose
territory stretched across the peninsula from the Mediterranean
to the Adriatic. South of the Papal States lay the kingdom
of Naples, which became part of the dominions of Spain early
in the sixteenth century, though the French kings thought they
had some claim to it. In the north were several small states,
of which the most important were Milan, Florence, and Venice.
Both France and Spain at different times secured possession of
the duchy of Milan, and it will be seen that with two of the
leading European powers putting forth rival claims to both Milan
P ^ eS Italy was Ukel y to t» ecome their battleground.
-pjP . ^England it is not necessary to say much in this place.
A he Wars of the Roses had come to an end. They had resulted
1 6 THE TUDOR PERIOD
in the destruction of a large part of the old nobility, and the
House of Tudor, which exercised unquestioned authority
over the whole country, now occupied the throne. England,
therefore, was a united country with a line of strong kings,
and was likely to become one of the great powers of Europe in
the sixteenth century. Scotland was still poor and backward.
Its kings exercised little authority over the great nobles of
the Lowlands and even less over the clan chieftains of the
Highlands. Fear of England led to the Scots maintaining a
more or less permanent alliance with France.
The great powers of Europe, therefore, in the sixteenth
century were Spain, France, and England, because these
countries had attained a degree of unity which was absent
from others. They were all ruled by strong kings, and their
position on the Atlantic opposite the New World indicated
that they were all in course of time likely to strive for colonial
empire. For the present, however, the more immediate rivalry
was that of France and Spain on account of their conflicting
claims in Italy. There was almost continuous warfare be-
tween them, broken by only occasional short periods of peace,
for the first sixty years of the sixteenth century. Both were
eager to secure English support, and the early Tudors sided
with each at different times, though with Spain more frequently
than with France. In the second half of the century, when the
Reformation had gained a firm hold on a considerable part of
Europe, Spain became definitely the champion of the Roman
Catholic Church, and England under Elizabeth was the
champion of the Reformation. The enmity of France and
Spain, therefore, was followed by the enmity of England
and Spain.
CHAPTER III
c
HENRY VII
Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, became King of England
as a result of his victory over Richard III at Bosworth in
1485. He was a descendant of Edward III, but this fact
was not enough to give him a right to the throne, since other
descendants of Edward III with better rights than his existed.
When he reached London he summoned a Parliament which,
when it met, recognised him as the undoubted and true King
of England. His real title to the throne rested on the approval
given by Parliament, which was supposed to represent the
nation. And it is probable that the nation really did approve
of Henry becoming King, because he seemed strong enough
to keep order and to prevent further fighting between Lan-
castrians and Yorkists. His aim throughout his reign was to
restore peace and to establish his power as King as firmly as
possible.
In the first part of his reign he dealt firmly with all who
might or did contest his right to the throne. Two persons
existed who had a better claim by descent than he had. One
was Edward, Earl of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence
who died in the Tower in 1478 and, therefore, a nephew of
Edward IV. The new King put him in the Tower, not for
anything he had done, but for being of such distinguished
birth. The other was the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of
Edward IV. Henry married her. As he was regarded as the
representative of the Lancastrian line and Elizabeth as that
of the Yorkists, the marriage would unite the rival claims and
the next king would be a descendant of both Houses.
There were certain other persons, however, who put forward
claims to the throne. One was Lambert Simnel, a boy who
asserted that he was the real Earl of Warwick. Henry brought
his prisoner forth from the Tower and showed him to the
people of London in order to convince them that Simnel was
Warwick. This, of course, merely proved that
rlenry had a prisoner and did nothing to prove that the captive
i8
THE TUDOR PERIOD
was the real Earl; nevertheless, it is probable that Simnel was
an impostor. He was put forward by certain Yorkists in
Ireland and crossed to England with a small force which was
defeated by the King's troops at Stoke. Simnel was captured,
and Henry, recognising that he was not the real traitor and
that he was merely acting as he had been trained to do by those
who supported him, pardoned him and made him a servant
in the royal palace.
A more dangerous pretender (if, indeed, he was not the
person he claimed to be) was Perkin Warbeck, who said that
he was Richard, Duke of York, the second son of Edward IV,
who was believed to have been murdered with his brother
Edward V in the Tower by order of their uncle, Richard III.
This new claimant to the throne asserted that only the boy
king had been killed and that his brother had escaped. If
this tale were true the youth would have a better claim to
the throne than either Warwick or Elizabeth, and would be
the most serious rival Henry had yet had to meet. Warbeck
was abroad, out of Henry's reach, and for a time received
support from the King of France. Henry invaded France
in 1492. No fighting took place, but before withdrawing
Henry insisted that Warbeck should be expelled. The claimant
retired to the Netherlands, then ruled by Margaret of York,
Duchess of Burgundy, on behalf of her stepdaughter Mary.
Margaret was a bitter enemy of Henry VII, and she readily
supported Warbeck. For some years he lived under her
protection, but Henry stopped the export of English wool to
the Netherlands. This seriously affected the woollen industry
of that country, as the manufacturers relied upon a supply of
wool from England. To avert the ruin of the country the
Duchess had to expel Warbeck, whereupon trade was renewed.
Warbeck next went to Scotland, where he was received by
King James IV, who permitted him to marry Lady Catherine
Gordon, a Scottish lady of high rank. Threat of English
invasion, however, induced James to exile his guest. Warbeck
retreated to Ireland and from that country invaded the south-
west of England. Henry's forces advanced against him and
he took refuge in Beaulieu Abbey, in Hampshire. The King
could not arrest him without violating the privilege of the
Church, and induced him to surrender on a promise that his
life should be spared. Warbeck, therefore, was put in the
Tower in 1497.
HENRY VII
19
Was he an impostor? Probably he was, though there is no
certainty about the matter. He was well received as Richard,
Duke of York, by the Kings of France and Scotland and the
Duchess of Burgundy. But none of them was friendly with
the English King, and all of them might have protected War-
beck in order to annoy Henry. It is probable, however, that
at least James IV believed in his claim. He might have
assisted a man whom he knew to be a pretender against
Henry VII, but he would not have permitted him to marry a
lady of royal descent. That he sanctioned this marriage makes
it highly probable that he believed in Warbeck's claim. Many
years afterwards, in the reign of Charles II, two skeletons were
discovered in the Tower that were thought to be those of
Edward V and his brother. They were reburied in West-
minster Abbey, and if they were really the remains of the two
boys there could be no further room for doubt that Warbeck
was an impostor. There is, however, no certainty about the
matter. Henry VII, of course, denied Warbeck's claim, but
it caused him a good deal of trouble. Two or three times he
threatened war on countries that sheltered the claimant, and
the determination with which he sought Warbeck out and
prevented him from settling seems to indicate that he may
privately have believed the claim to be genuine.
In 1499 the Earl of Warwick and Perkin Warbeck, both
prisoners in the Tower, were charged with plotting to over-
throw the King's rule, and were sentenced to death. The Earl
suffered in the way usual for a man of noble birth; he was
beheaded. Warbeck was hanged, as a common fellow, at
Tyburn. The King thus, in the manner of Warbeck's death,
refused to recognise his claim. It is impossible that the
plot" could have been the real cause of these executions,
for State prisoners safely under lock and key have little chance
of bringing about a revolution. The real reason is to be found
in the negotiations which were then being carried on for a
marriage between the Prince of Wales and a princess of Spain.
Ferdinand was unwilling to go on with the matter while any-
w- u h u Ved who could cont est the Tudor right to the throne.
With the death of these two men Henry had no more plotters
or claimants to face.
The only powerful bodies in the country which might in
way try to limit the power of the Crown were the nobility
an the Church. Parliament, which had exerted a good deal
20
THE TUDOR PERIOD
of influence under the House of Lancaster, had become less
powerful under the House of York and was at this time of
little importance. It met rarely, and hardly ever ventured to
oppose the will of the King. The Church was powerful,
and was left untouched by Henry VII, who left the task of
dealing with it to his son. The first Tudor king made it his
life-work to destroy the power of the baronage.
His task was made easier by the fact that the great nobles
were much fewer in number than they had been a generation
earlier, since many had been killed in the Wars of the Roses.
These wars had, indeed, been faction fights between powerful
nobles, who kept private armies of retainers. Retainers were
not, as a rule, paid by their lord, but they wore his badge and
enjoyed his protection. Every man who lived on the estates
of a great lord would enrol as his retainer. Henry made it
illegal for nobles to keep retainers, and though it was not at
first easy to enforce the law on this matter the King’s per-
sistence had its effect, and the great baronial retinues died out.
It would have been impossible to enforce the law by means
of the ordinary shire courts throughout the country, since such
courts would have been more afraid of the great lord in their
own neighbourhood than of the distant King and would have
done nothing. Henry, therefore, established a new court,
the Star Chamber, which was under his protection and which
was too powerful to fear the threats of great lords. Nobles
who offended against the law by keeping retainers were
summoned before the Star Chamber and fined heavily.
One of the chief sources of the strength of a baron in the
Middle Ages was his castle. In the open field a king could
generally defeat a rebellious noble. But if the latter held a
strong castle, well provisioned and properly garrisoned and
with a supply of water, he could hold out for a very long time,
and the king, who might have more important matters else-
where to attend to, would be glad to make terms. By the
beginning of the Tudor period, however, cannon were coming
into common use. But only the king possessed them, and, if
necessary, he could use them effectively against the strong-
holds of his barons. For this reason the castles which had
hitherto been so formidable ceased to be important.
During his reign Henry VII amassed a large amount of
treasure. He was economical in his government and probably
saved something, year by year, out of the ordinary revenues,
21
HENRY VII
The heavy fines which the Star Chamber inflicted went into
his treasury. He revived the practice of asking for benevo-
lences, which were supposed to be free gifts offered by wealthy
subjects to a needy king, out of their feeling of goodwill,
or benevolence, towards him. John Morton, Archbishop of
Canterbury and Cardinal, was the King's agent in this matter,
and his “Fork" is well known. It is said that people who
lived in good style were told that as they were obviously
wealthy they could afford to assist the King, while those who
lived in less extravagant fashion were expected to help him
because they must be saving a good deal of money. The
practice of exacting benevolences had been made illegal in
the reign of Richard III, but Henry VII took no notice of the
law then made, on the ground that Richard was a usurper
and that the law against benevolences was not properly passed,
since it had not received the assent of the rightful king. Henry
has been accused of miserliness, but this is not the sole reason
for his accumulating money. In the first part of his reign he
had to face various plots, rebellions, and impostures. It was
quite possible that one of these might succeed and that he
might have to fly hastily to the continent. If this should
happen it would be easy, if he were provided with funds, to
secure the services of a mercenary army with which to return
and recover his crown. He kept his wealth in the smallest
and most portable form possible — he bought jewels. A small
bag would hold immense wealth in this form and if the King
had to fly he need not leave his treasure behind him. He never
had to fly, but his accumulation of jewels should be looked
upon as a kind of insurance against the loss of his throne rather
than as evidence of sheer greed. It may be added that
Henry VII was not averse from spending money at times,
and that he built a magnificent chapel, which is known by his
name, at the east end of Westminster Abbey Church.
CHAPTER IV
EARLY TUDOR FOREIGN POLICY
During the Hundred Years War the English had conquered
a large part of France, but in the reign of Henry VI they lost
all that they had won, except Calais. While the Wars of the
Roses continued England was of little importance in European
affairs, though Edward IV did something to restore English
repute on the continent. The early Tudor kings hoped to
re-establish their country as a first-rank European power.
Henry VII, indeed, did not wish to fight in European wars,
but his son was eager to extend his fame by force of arms.
During the first half of his reign Henry VIPs position was
too uncertain for him to wish to make war in Europe, since the
pretenders and rebels against whom he had to guard would
certainly receive support from any country with which he was
at war. However, he invaded France in 1492. No fighting
followed, for the French King, Charles VIII, was anxious to
extend his power^ in Italy, and readily made peace by the
Treaty of Etaples, on terms which suited the English King.
Warbeck was to be expelled from France, and a sum of money
which was owing under the terms of an earlier treaty was to
be paid to Henry.
English relations with the Netherlands were generally of a
commercial rather than of a political nature. Large quantities
of English wool were sent there every year to be manufactured
into fine cloth, and much of the prosperity of both countries
depended on the continuance of this trade. When, however,
Warbeck was received by the ruling Duchess, Henry stopped
the export of wool to the Netherlands, and though much
distress was caused in England the effect was even more
disastrous there. The Duchess had to give way and expel
Warbeck. By a treaty of 1496, called the Great Intercourse
(Magnus Intercursus), trade was resumed. Ten years later
another commercial treaty, the Bad Intercourse (Malus Inter-
cursus), was concluded, on terms much more favourable to the
English than to the Flemings.
22
23
EARLY TUDOR FOREIGN POLICY
In 1494 Charles VIII invaded Italy, and for many years
that country was the scene of fighting between France and
Spain. Though Henry had no intention of taking part in the
Italian wars he thought of forming a Spanish alliance, as
England had been in the main hostile to France for nearly
two hundred years. At this time the usual method of con-
cluding an alliance between two countries was to arrange a
royal marriage between the king or a prince of one and the
queen or a princess of the other. Many examples of such
marriages, actual or proposed, will be met with in a study of
the Tudor period. Henry desired to arrange a marriage
between his son Arthur, Prince of Wales, and Catherine of
Aragon, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. Ferdinand did
not agree to the proposal until after the execution of Warwick
and Warbeck in 1499. Arrangements were then made, how-
ever, and in November, 1501, the wedding took place. Catherine
came to England and brought with her a substantial dowry.
Unfortunately, Arthur died in April, 1502, and Henry’s plans
seemed to be crumbling to dust. The alliance was in danger,
and, if Catherine returned to her father, the dowry would go
with her. To avert these unpleasant results the King proposed
that Catherine should marry his second son, Henry, Duke of
York, whom he made Prince of Wales. But such a marriage
would be void in the eye of the Church, which forbade a man
to marry his brother’s widow. The difficulty was overcome
by the granting by Pope Julius II of a dispensation which
would permit of the proposed marriage taking place. For some
years Catherine lived in England as Dowager Princess of Wales
while her future husband was growing up. The actual marriage
took place about two months after he became King as Henry
VIII. He was then eighteen years of age, while Catherine
was some years older.
The Spanish alliance thus continued, and to make doubly
sure of it Henry VII even proposed, after the death of his
Queen, Elizabeth, to marry Catherine’s sister Joanna, a mad
woman. Nothing came of this, but the negotiations helped
to keep alive the connection with Spain until the time came for
the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine to be celebrated.
For two centuries England and Scotland had been unfriendly,
and Henry VII tried to bring about a better state of affairs
between them. For a time James IV, who became King of
Scotland in 1488, preferred the traditional policy of his country
24
THE TUDOR PERIOD
— friendship with France and enmity towards England — and
sheltered Warbeck after his expulsion from the Netherlands
until a threat of English invasion caused him to send the
pretender away. Some years later, however, he became more
friendly with England, and in 1503 he married Margaret Tudor,
elder daughter of Henry VII. For the next ten years the two
countries were on fairly good terms with each other. The
marriage proved to be of unusual importance, for not only
did it secure Anglo-Scottish friendship at the time but it led
to the union of the English and Scottish crowns a century later,
since James the First of England and Sixth of Scotland was
the great-grandson of James IV and Margaret.
When Henry VIII became King in 1509 he resolved to
continue his father’s policy of alliance with Spain, but in more
active and vigorous style. He was only eighteen years old,
but he was a man in body and mind. Tall and strong, he
excelled in the tournament, and was eager to win a great name
for himself on the field of battle. At the moment, however,
no opportunity of taking part in European warfare offered itself.
In 1508 the League of Cambray had been formed against
Venice, which had been extending its territories in Italy at the
expense of its neighbours, and, consequently, had roused their
anger. Accordingly, France and Spain laid aside for a time
their antagonism in Italian affairs and allied for the purpose
of punishing Venice. The Emperor Maximilian and the Pope
Julius II joined the League. The Emperor invaded and
ravaged the territory of the Venetians; the Pope, who was more
at home in camp than in church, warred against them; and
the French sent into northern Italy an army which defeated
them at the Battle of Agnadello. The Venetians were forced
to win peace at the price of yielding up their recent gains.
But Italy was not yet to enjoy peace. Ferdinand and the
Pope were alarmed at the presence of a victorious French
army in northern Italy, an army which showed no intention
of returning to its own country. There seemed to be no reason
why this army should not try to enforce the French claim on
the kingdom of Naples, which was in Ferdinand’s possession.
And if the French marched to Naples they would have to pass
through the Papal States, which was not to the Holy Father's
taste. Too late, the Pope and the Spanish King reflected on
their unwisdom in inviting the French to invade Italy, even
for such a purpose as to chastise their common enemy, Venice.
EARLY TUDOR FOREIGN POLICY
25
A new alliance, the Holy League, was formed in 15 n.
In addition to Spain and the Pope, the Emperor and the
Venetians joined it, the latter being more than willing to see
their recent conquerors humiliated. But the League was none
too strong, and France might be more than a match for it.
The War of the Holy League
Ferdinand therefore invited his son-in-law, Henry VIII, to
join it, and the English King, eager to enter the sphere of
European warfare, did so.
In 1512 Henry revived the English claim on Gascony, which
had been lost before the end of the Hundred Years War, and
sent an army under the Marquis of Dorset to the south-west
of France. It was assumed that a direct attack on French
territory would compel the French to withdraw from Italy.
Henry expected, but did not receive, assistance from Ferdinand*
26
THE TUDOR PERIOD
The expedition was badly planned and equipped, the troops
mutinied, and the affair was a failure. Meanwhile, a great
battle had been fought in Italy, at Ravenna, on Easter Day,
1512. Although the French won the battle their leader was
killed and they were forced to leave Italy. The duchy of Milan
was lost to the French.
In 1513 Henry himself took the field and led an army into
Flanders. He expected help from Maximilian, but the
Emperor arrived in the English camp with no more than his
personal attendants. The English captured Therouanne and
Tournai and defeated a French force at the Battle of Guine-
gatte, which is commonly called the Battle of Spurs. Much of
the credit for the success of the campaign was due to Thomas
Wolsey, a priest, to whom was entrusted the task of keeping
the army supplied with food and equipment. Wolsey did his
work well, and was already making his way in the King's good
graces. He was rewarded by being given the bishopric of the
captured city of Tournai.
During the year 1513, while Henry was absent on the
continent, James IV invaded England. Though he had married
an English princess he had not given up his friendship with
France, and among the Scottish nobles there were two parties,
preferring respectively the French and the English alliance.
Old national habit proved too strong for James, and the
opportunity afforded by England's continental war induced
him to lead an army across the border. He was defeated and
slain at the Battle of Flodden, and very few of his men escaped.
Before long Henry learned that his untrustworthy allies were
secretly negotiating for peace. He decided, therefore, to make
his own peace with Louis XII in 1514, and the treaty was
followed by a marriage between Henry's younger sister Mary
and the old King Louis. But Louis died in about three
months’ time, and Mary married the man with whom she was
in love, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. The new French
King, Francis I, who ascended the throne on the first of January,
1515, plunged with vigour into the war against Spain. He led
an army into Italy and won a great victory at Marignano over
the Swiss allies of the Holy League. The immediate result
of this achievement, apart from the establishment of the
military fame of France, was the recovery for France of the
duchy of Milan. In the following year, 1516, Ferdinand of
Aragon died, and a new era in Franco-Spanish rivalry began.
CHAPTER V
THE RIVALRY OF FRANCE AND SPAIN DURING THE FIRST PART OF
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
When Ferdinand died he was succeeded on the throne of
Spain by his grandson Charles, the son of the mad Joanna.
She had married the Archduke Philip, son of the Emperor
Maximilian and Mary of Burgundy. Charles, therefore,
ultimately succeeded to important possessions from every one
of his grandparents. From Ferdinand and Isabella he obtained
Aragon and Castile, which henceforth formed the kingdom of
Spain, besides outlying Spanish possessions such as the king-
dom of Naples and the Mediterranean islands. As grandson
of Mary of Burgundy he ruled the Netherlands, and at the
death of his grandfather Maximilian he succeeded to the
Austrian dominions. During his reign important Spanish
settlements were made in the New World. Charles was
without doubt one of the most powerful personages in Europe
in the first half of the sixteenth century.
France was now under the rule of Francis I, who had gained
a great reputation as a soldier by his victory at Marignano.
England had for some years been ruled by Henry VIII, whose
military fame rested upon his campaign in Flanders in 1513.
The three countries of western Europe which were likely to
be in the forefront of affairs in the sixteenth century were thus
ruled at the same time by three young and ambitious kings.
In 1519 the Emperor Maximilian died, and the choicdfcf his
successor was a matter of greater interest than usual. Each of
the three young kings offered himself as a candidate for the
Imperial crown. Henry VIII, however, on Wolsey’s advice,
withdrew. Wolsey, by this time a Cardinal, saw clearly that
the bitter rivalry of the other two kings would lead them to
war, whatever the result of the election, and that they were so
evenly matched in power that both would be anxious to secure
Henry’s alliance. He, by holding the balance between them,
could hope to gain much more than by securing the empty
27
28
THE TUDOR PERIOD
honour of the Imperial crown. Charles and Francis, through
their ambassadors, negotiated with the Electors, and both made
lavish promises. In the end Charles was chosen Emperor as
Charles V, and Francis prepared for war.
As Wolsey had foreseen, both turned to Henry. At the
Field of the Cloth of Gold Francis entertained the King of
England in state, and professions of friendship were exchanged.
Charles met Henry, however, both before and after the latter's
meeting with Francis, and, in addition, the Emperor intrigued
with Wolsey. The Cardinal was desirous of becoming Pope,
and Charles promised that at the next vacancy he would use
his influence in Wolsey's favour. As a result, when the war
began England was found on the Emperor's side against
France. Between 1521 and 1525 fighting occurred in several
parts of western Europe, and in 1525 Francis invaded Italy in
person. He was defeated by the Emperor's troops at Pavia,
and fell a prisoner into the hands of his enemy. Milan was
recovered by Charles, and it remained a Spanish possession
for one hundred and eighty years.
England had contributed little to the Emperor's victory,
and the alliance between Charles and Henry began to cool off.
Henry did not wish to see the Emperor grow too powerful.
Moreover, Wolsey was disappointed. Twice since Charles
made his promise the papal throne had been vacant, and on
both occasions Wolsey had been passed over. He, like his
master, was inclined to withdraw English support from the
Emperor. But a greater question was about to come to the
front, a matter which was to have the effect of putting Henry
and Charles in bitter opposition to each other.
The Anglo-Spanish alliance which had lasted from the
middle of Henry VII's reign to this time had been cemented by
the marriage of Catherine of Aragon, first to Arthur, Prince
of Wales, and then to Henry VIII. Henry's marriage with her
had been possible only after the Pope had granted a dispensa-
tion sanctioning this breach of Church law. And now the
King of England wanted to get rid of his wife! He was
about to demand from Pope Clement VII a declaration that
Pope Julius II had exceeded his powers in granting the dispensa-
tion and that, in fact, the supposed marriage was no marriage
at all. It is hardly necessary to point out that the Emperor,
who was Catherine's nephew, would use all his influence at
Rome to prevent this “divorce" being granted, and that after
THE RIVALRY OF FRANCE AND SPAIN 29
the question had been definitely raised there could not possibly
be an alliance between Henry and Charles.
In 1526 Francis was released from captivity on terms which
he disregarded at once. He renewed the war, this time with
Henry as an ally. Charles, however, was still victorious, and
another peace was made in 1529. Henry now withdrew from
continental warfare, but France and Spain continued to fight
from time to time until 1538. Meanwhile, Henry made
extensive religious changes in England and put an end to
papal authority in this country.
After 1538 there seemed to be some possibility that Charles
and Francis might drop their enmity and join forces in defence
of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. If this should
happen they might even unite in war against their old ally,
Henry VIII. Henry's policy, hitherto, had been based on the
assumption that Charles and Francis would always be opposed
to each other and that he would be at liberty to support either
or neither. But if they allied against him he would be in grave
difficulty. Thomas Cromwell, his minister at this time, sug-
gested that he should seek an alliance with certain Protestant
princes in the Holy Roman Empire, who, if they could not give
direct help to Henry, could stir up enough trouble in the
Empire to keep Charles fully occupied there. Accordingly, a
marriage was arranged between Henry, who happened to be
unmarried at the time, and the Lady Anne of Cleves, sister of
the Duke of Cleves. The marriage was actually celebrated in
1540 by proxy before the King had set eyes on his bride. Her
personal appearance proved to be displeasing to him, and he
sent Cromwell to the block on a charge of treason — really, of
course, because he had brought about a distasteful marriage.
For a few months Anne was Queen of England. Then war
was renewed between Charles and Francis. The talked-of
alliance between them came to nothing, and Henry no longer
needed the Cleves alliance. He therefore arranged that the
marriage should be declared void. Anne agreed to this being
done, and the King settled a substantial income upon her
and gave her a residence at Richmond, where she lived for
many years.
Before the end of the reign the King restored the Princess
Mary, his daughter by Catherine of Aragon, to her right of
succession to the throne. This seems to have satisfied the
Emperor, and the alliance between him and Henry was revived.
30
THE TUDOR PERIOD
War with France followed and the English captured Boulogne,
which was held at the time of Henry’s death in 1547, but was
recovered by the French in 1550. Francis also died in 1547,
and was succeeded by his son, Henry II.
Charles lived a few years longer, and the enmity against
France which had existed throughout the life of Francis
continued during that of his son. The Emperor abdicated in
1556. To succeed him as Emperor the Electors chose his
brother Ferdinand, but the whole of the Spanish dominions
passed to his son, Philip II. Philip, while still Prince, and
not King, of Spain, prepared to carry on the struggle. To
secure the English alliance he married his cousin Mary, the
daughter of Henry VIII and now Queen of England. He was
not in the least in love with her, but he realised that a marriage
would secure a more durable alliance than that which had
existed between his father and his wife’s father.
In 1557 England joined Spain in war with France. Though
the Spanish won a victory at St. Quentin the English were
unsuccessful, and, in January, 1558, they lost Calais, the last
English possession in France. The loss proved to be Mary's
death-blow, and, in November, 1558, she died, being followed
on the throne by her sister Elizabeth. Philip, accordingly, had
to rearrange his plans, and hoped to keep the English alliance
by marrying Elizabeth. She declined his proposal, however,
although he offered to make no peace with France which did
not include the recovery of Calais by England. Shortly after-
wards, in 1559, France and Spain made peace. During their
long struggle, extending with slight intermissions over forty
years, the Reformation had been gaining ground in various
parts of Europe, and these two Catholic countries now decided
to bring their warfare to an end in order that they might the
more effectually turn their arms against Protestantism and
restore the supremacy of the Pope in religion in all parts of
the world.
CHAPTER VI
WOLSEY
Thomas Wolsey was born at Ipswich, in 1471, of well-to-do
but not aristocratic parents. His success in life was due,
therefore, to his ability and not to his birth. He was educated
at Oxford and decided to become a priest, as, for a man of
humble birth, there was a greater chance of advancement
in the Church than in any other calling. The Bishop of
Winchester, Richard Fox, made him known at the court of
Henry VII, and before that king's death Wolsey held the post
of Royal Almoner and was Dean of Lincoln.
In Henry VIII's reign his advance was rapid. His control
of the commissariat arrangements during the campaign of
1513 in Flanders commended him to the King. On the fall
of Tournai he was made Bishop of that city, and before the
end of the year he was Bishop of Lincoln. In 1514 he became
Archbishop of York and in the following year Lord Chancellor,
an office usually then held by a churchman. Within a year or
two he had received from the Pope the dignity of Cardinal, and
the appointment of Papal Legate. In course of time he added
to his appointments the Bishoprics of Winchester, Bath, and
Durham, and the Abbey of St. Albans, so that he received
enormous revenues and became a very wealthy man. As
befitted so great an ecclesiastic he lived in great state and built
for himself at Westminster a palace known as York House, and
another, farther up the Thames, called Hampton Court.
Wolsey had now reached, for a subject, the highest possible
rank in England, while in the Church only one higher step was
open to him. That step he hoped to take, and for many years
he kept in view the possibility of becoming Pope, so that he,
at Rome, in conjunction with Henry in England, might control
the affairs of Europe. Meanwhile, as Henry VIII's chief
adviser, he ruled England for fifteen years, though the King
never left the work of government entirely to his minister.
Wolsey preferred to rule without parliamentary interference.
32 THE TUDOR PERIOD
It is true that Parliament was not of very great importance in
the early Tudor period, but a Parliament met every year from
1509 to 1514, and after Wolsey’s fall in 1529 Parliament met
fairly regularly. But during the period of his power, 1514-29,
only one Parliament met, in 1523. It was called because the
King was short of money and hoped that it would make a grant.
It offered him a much smaller amount than was asked for,
and was soon dissolved. Wolsey, in fact, preferred to rule(
through the Council, a small group of nobles. The orders
issued by the Council touched upon many things in the life
of the nation. The Star Chamber was the court through
which the Cardinal secured the punishment of those who
displeased him. It is not to be expected that Wolsey’s rule
should be acceptable to nobles who secretly despised him on
account of his birth while they feared him because of his
power. But the Cardinal was popular with the common
people, who were able to reach him and put their complaints
before him.
At this time the Reformation was beginning on the continent.
Wolsey realised that Church reform was really needed. He
did not approve, however, of the action of the Lutherans in
breaking away from the Church, but thought that reform would
be surer and more satisfactory if it was brought about in
another way. He regarded the bad state of the Church as
due in great part to the low standard of life and education
required of the clergy. A more scholarly priesthood would,
he thought, bring about an improvement in the condition
of the Church and the disappearance of its worst abuses.
Accordingly, he became a patron of education. He founded
a grammar school in his native town, and at Oxford he built
a college, to be known as Cardinal College, which would,
when finished, be greater than any other connected with the
University. Before its foundation was complete he fell, and
the college, known henceforth as Christ Church, was estab-
lished under the patronage of the King. Wolsey, however,
was no genuine reformer. In his own person some of the
worst abuses of the Church found example, and he never
tried to reform himself. If he had given up some of his
wealth by resigning some of the bishoprics he held, he would
have left a greater reputation for sincerity.
His personal ambition was to become Pope, and in order to
further this aim he persuaded Henry to support the Emperor
WOLSEY
33
Charles against France for some years. But the Emperor
played him false, and Wolsey grew lukewarm in his support.
As has already been stated, the breach between Henry and
Charles became complete when the divorce question was
brought forward. Wolsey may even have been the first to
suggest it to Henry, hoping by this means to break the Imperial
alliance. It is said that a question was asked about the validity
of the marriage by a French bishop who was sent by his king
on a mission to the English court. The matter was not pressed
at the time. It is quite possible, however, that the Bishop
acted on a hint from Wolsey in raising the point. He would
naturally be willing to oblige a powerful cardinal who might
one day become Pope. But whether this be the case or not,
Wolsey was believed for some years to be in favour of the
divorce.
Henry wished to have his marriage with Catherine declared
null and void because of certain doubts which had arisen in
his mind about it. Such, at least, was the reason he gave,
and there may have been some truth in it. Several children
had been born, and all but one, the Princess Mary, had died
in infancy. To the King this seemed to be an indication of
Divine anger at some sin he had committed, and he concluded
that he had offended God by marrying his brother's widow.
It was, of course, important that he should have a son to succeed
him as King. If no son was brought to manhood fhiere might
even be civil war at his death, for though Mary was his heiress
no woman had ever sat on the throne of England, and it was
doubtful if the nation would accept her. For these reasons
Henry asked the Pope to declare that Pope Julius II had ex-
ceeded his power in granting the dispensation, and that, there-
fore, the marriage was null and void. No Pope would like to
make such a statement about another Pope. He would prefer
to assert that papal power was unlimited in every way. Never-
theless, the Pope would not wish to offend a powerful king such
as Henry VIII, and it is probable that the Roman lawyers
would have found some way by which the Pope could have
granted Henry’s request if other circumstances had not
complicated the question.
Charles y was, of course, opposed to the divorce of his
aunt, and in 1527 a German army which included many
Lutherans captured Rome. The city was delivered over to
the soldiers. Cardinals were treated with insult, and even
THE TUDOR PERIOD
34
the Pope himself became a prisoner in the Emperor's hands.
He was afraid to do anything to offend Charles, and he was
unwilling to offend Henry and Francis, who were by this time
in alliance, because he could look only to them for help. If
Clement VII had been a man of stronger character he would
have declared boldly that he would not judge the divorce
question until he was free. Instead, he merely devised pre-
texts for postponing his decision. In 1528 he appointed a
commission consisting of two Cardinals, Wolsey and Cam-
peggio, to examine the case in England. Henry's hopes ran
high, and the Emperor was in despair. Wolsey, of course,
was likely to support Henry. Campeggio, though an Italian,
held the Bishopric of Salisbury. The case seemed to be
settled by what might almost be regarded as the appointment
of two English Cardinals to try it. Yet it was not until June,
1529, that the Cardinals opened their court at Blackfriars, and
a month later they declared that the case had been recalled
to Rome.
Henry was really angry. He felt that he had been tricked,
and that his own minister, Wolsey, had played him false.
His anger fell on the Cardinal, who was deprived of all his
offices. Wolsey surrendered his palaces of Hampton Court
and York House to the King, who renamed the latter White-
hall. Relenting to some extent, he restored Wolsey to his
archbishopric, and the Cardinal went, for the first time, to
live at York. But in 1530 he was arrested on a charge of
treason. Broken in health, he died at Leicester Abbey, on the
way to London.
CHAPTER VII
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION
At the present time the Christian religion is proclaimed, in
various forms, by a large number of religious bodies, each of
which is commonly called a church. In this country are to
be found the Church of England, the Presbyterian Church,
the Methodist Church, and many others. In the Middle Ages,
however, this was not the case. In the countries of western
Europe there was but one Church. From the fact that it pre-
vailed everywhere it might be called the Catholic Church; it
was usually called the “ Church/' without any qualifying adjec-
tive at all. It was claimed that the Church had been founded
by Christ, and that the first churchmen were the apostles and
disciples who gathered round their Master. After the ascension
of Christ his gospel was spread by his followers, and it ultimately
reached every part of the Roman Empire. The Church was
persecuted at first, but it prevailed in time, and Christianity
became the religion of the Empire. The Church became a
highly organised body, with Pope and cardinals at its head,
and with archbishops, bishops, and priests in every part of the
Christian world. With the spread of Christianity and the
success of the Church much of its original simplicity was lost,
and in the Middle Ages it became corrupt in many ways.
In the ninth century it was split into two parts. The
Christians of eastern Europe formed th^ Eastern Church, or
Greek Church, and they regarded the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople as their chief. This division has lasted until the present
time, and the Eastern Church is often called Orthodox, to
distinguish! it from the Westeu^ or Catholic, Church. The
Patriarch of Constantinople wmild not admit the right of the
Roman Pope to rule the whole of the Church.
In the Middle Ages many of the clergy of the Catholic
Church did not lead truly Christian lives. Men who became
priests in the Church ought to have conducted themselves,
as far as they could, on the model presented by Christ, and so
35
36 THE TUDOR PERIOD
set an example to their people. Some of them did so, but
many of the parish clergy were lazy and careless. If they
performed the actual services in the churches they did little
else, and some of them were even wicked and criminal. It
was the duty of the bishops to see that they did their work and
that they were fit for the positions they occupied. Bishops,
however, were usually wealthy and worldly men, living in great
state, and often they neglected their dioceses, being much more
anxious to take part in the life of the court than in that of the
Church. Much of the work that was neglected by the priests
was done by the friars. These men, who were bound by their
vows to the strictest poverty, demanded payment for their
services, and even the poorest people had to give money to a
friar before he would do anything for them. In the higher
ranks of the clergy great wealth and great wickedness pre-
vailed. Popes and cardinals were, in many cases, evil men.
Though not all of them were really bad, most of them lived
in great style at Rome, and some were monsters of evil. Pope
Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) earned a reputation as a
poisoner, and committed other crimes as well. From top to
bottom there was serious and urgent need of reform in the
lives of the clergy.
It was claimed that the doctrines which the Church taught
to the people were the truths which had been held ever since
the time of Christ. Some people, however (and among them
were many of those who had studied Greek and read the New
Testament in that language), thought that the doctrines of the
Church needed to be restated, and that, in fact, much of what
was being taught by the Church was very far from being what
Christ taught. This division of opinion is still to be found,
some people thinking that the medieval Church was right in
its teaching and others regarding it as wrong. It is not
necessary to discuss the matter in detail. But it may be pointed
out that in some ways the teaching of the Church was very
crude. Ignorant people were taught about hell and purgatory
as places where real fire existed, which could be avoided only
by the help of priests, for whose services payment must be
made. A practice grew up, in Germany, of selling pardons,
or “indulgences," which were supposed to have the effect ot
shortening the stay of their purchaser in purgatory. It can
hardly be doubted that in these and similar matters the teaching
of the Church needed to be purified.
THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION 37
The Church was wealthy. It possessed vast lands in every
country in which Christianity was established. Much of this
land had been given by kings and nobles and other wealthy
people in earlier times in order to show their admiration for
the work of Christian clergy in spreading the Christian religion.
Some was given by dying men who hoped by pleasing the
Church to avoid a lengthened stay in purgatory. As the
centuries rolled on, the Church grew ever richer, since it
rarely parted with any of its property and additions to it were
constantly being made. This wealth was used for the support
of the clergy. In the higher ranks the great prelates possessed
very large incomes, and even the parish priests were well off,
so that there was never any difficulty in securing a supply of
priests. Many men, in short, entered the priesthood because
it offered them a comfortable living with very little work.
At the head of the Church was the Pope, who was elected
by the cardinals. The right of the Bishop of Rome to be head
of the Church was based on certain words of Christ to St. Peter.
It was contended that Christ placed Peter at the head of the
Church, that Peter became first Bishop of Rome, and that all
later Bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, were entitled to
the headship of the Church. This was a claim that the
Eastern Church had denied, and in the West many people
learned in the sixteenth century to doubt it. The Pope, more-
over, was ruler of a tract of territory in central Italy, known
as the Papal States. He was an earthly as well as a spiritual
ruler. Popes in the Middle Ages claimed to be superior to,
all earthly kings. As the representatives of God upon earth
they claimed the right to depose a wicked king and give his
throne to some other person. 44 1 am the judge of all the earth,"
said Pope Alexander IIJ in 1159.
In several ways, then, the Church needed reform. It was
still the one Church which had been founded by Christ, but
with the passing of time and the increase of prosperity it had
become corrupt. Its defects had not appeared suddenly.
They represented the growth of centuries. The evil had crept
in gradually and had hardly been noticed, and ordinary men,
for the most part, did not know that the Church to which
they belonged was no longer pure. Yet here and there were
men of keener sight than their fellows, men who saw that
reform was necessary and that sooner or later it must be
undertaken.
38
THE TUDOR PERIOD
In England, in the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe, a
priest, was gravely troubled about the corruption which he
found in the Church in his time, though it was not then so
bad as it became afterwards. By his preaching he influenced
many people who formed the sect known as Lollards. Wycliffe
taught that men in positions of authority ought to be obeyed
only if they were good men, and that Pope and king, lord and
bishop, forfeited their right to obedience if they were wicked.
Wycliffe found that many of his fellow priests were lazy, and
that they had entered the Church because of the comfortable
posts to be found in it. He thought that only good men
should be priests, and that if the Church renounced its wealth
worldly men would not enter it. He proposed, therefore, that
the Church should become poor by giving up its lands, and
that priests should be supported by their people. These ideas
were not very acceptable to the great churchmen, however,
and, though Wycliffe was never seriously troubled, his followers
were persecuted after his death, and some Lollards w r ere even
burned at the stake.
On the continent at the same time there were grave scandals
in the Church. For forty years there were two popes, one at
Rome and one at Avignon, each proclaiming himself to be the
rightful successor of Peter, and each excommunicating his
rival. For a few years, indeed, the position was made even
worse by the establishment of a third pope. A great Council
of bishops and others met at Constance and ended this state or
affairs by deposing those “popes" who would not submit to
it, and electing a new one who was recognised by all parts
of the Church. It was then proposed that a Council of the
Church should meet every ten years to consider necessary
reforms. One such council met, but the scheme of regular
councils broke down. Popes did not like councils which might
try to limit their power, and no further councils were called-
The failure of this movement is much to be regretted, i
ten such councils had met in the century before the Reforma-
tion they could hardly have failed to estabHsh reforms which
would have rendered unnecessary the break-up of the Churcn
which occurred in the sixteenth century.
CHAPTER VIII
THE REFORMATION
The movement in the sixteenth century which is called the
Reformation was the outcome of the evils which existed in
the Church. These evils had long troubled the minds of the
best men in the Church. Yet they were not new. Abuses
had existed for centuries, and only occasional, and not very
successful, efforts had been made to deal with them. Perhaps
this was because men's eyes had not been opened to them.
What people have been accustomed to all their lives they often
accept as right because they never think of questioning it or
inquiring into it.
One effect of the Renaissance was to stimulate men to think
for themselves. They began to inquire into things, and were
not so ready as in former days to take them for granted. The
result of this spirit has already been noticed so far as explora-
tion is concerned. It was applied also to religion. Men
began to consider the condition of the Church. The spread
of the study of Greek enabled them to read the New Testa-
ment in that language, to consider the teachings of Christ and
to contrast them with the condition and doctrine of the Church
in their time.
Martin Luther was born in Saxony, a state of the Holy
Roman Empire, in 1483, and when he grew up he became a
friar. In 1509 the Elector of Saxony established a University
at Wittenberg and appointed Luther as one of its professors.
1512 the young friar visited Rome and was deeply impressed
with the wickedness which prevailed there, though he had at
the time no idea of taking any action against it. But a year or
two later a Dominican friar named Tetzel was sent into Ger-
pa^ny to sell indulgences to the people, the money so obtained
being used for the building of St. Peter's Church, in Rome.
a time Tetzel did well, large sums being raised. In his
travels from state to state he was not always welcome, for the
princes did not altogether approve of so much money being
THE TUDOR PERIOD
40
sent out of the country. But none of them ventured to incur
the anger of the Pope by forbidding his agent to continue the
sale. When, therefore, Luther called the proceedings of
Tetzel in question he had at once the sympathy and support
of many of the princes.
In the University of Wittenberg, as in other universities,
it was customary to hold public debates. Any member of the
University might give notice of a subject which he would, on
an appointed date, maintain in open discussion against all who
cared to dispute it. In 1517 Luther gave notice of his intention
to debate the subject of indulgences against all comers. He
nailed on the church door at Wittenberg a paper containing
ninety-five statements on the subject, including assertions that
indulgences that were bought and sold were valueless, that the
penalties of sin were not to be evaded by the payment of
money, and that pardon for sin was to be obtained only by
repentance and faith in God. Luther intended to start a
university debate, but before long the whole town of Witten-
berg was talking of nothing else, and the matter soon spread
throughout the state of Saxony and far and wide through the
Empire.
One of the early results of this criticism of indulgences was
that the volume of sales diminished. Men were less eager to
buy them while their value was in doubt. Tetzel and others
publicly argued the matter against Luther and the controversy
went on for two or three years. Notice was taken of it at
Rome, where the falling-off in receipts from Germany was
felt. In 1520 Luther was excommunicated. Hitherto he
had acted as though he was defending the true doctfifie of
the Church against an error which had crept in, but he now
boldly defied the Pope, whom he described as Antichrist.
He burned the bull of excommunication in the market-place
at Wittenberg. . M
With all its faults, the Church hitherto had possessed one
good feature which it lost at this time. It had been, as Christ
intended it to be, one Church— in western Europe, at least
(though the separate existence of the Eastern Church must not
be forgotten). The Church of the West was now split up, and
the division that began in 1 520 has never been healed. Instead,
divisions have multiplied, and there are now hundreds of bodies,
large and small, that claim to be part of the Christian Churcn.
The blame for this split, which began with the excommumca-
%
THE REFORMATION
4i
tion of Luther, must be attributed to the Pope. Luther's
conduct in later years was not blameless, but he was excom-
municated for protesting against an abuse. Yet other men
had even denied some of the doctrines of the Church, and had
not been excommunicated. Luther’s criticism of the sale of
indulgences, however, had affected papal revenues, and this
led to his condemnation.
Many of the German princes, among them the Elector of
Saxony, were willing to help Luther. The new Emperor,
Charles V, who had just been elected, wanted to outlaw him
and, if possible, put him to death. But he wanted the help of
the princes in the war which was about to begin against France,
a matter which seemed to him to be much more important
than hunting down an excommunicated friar. The Elector
of Saxony kept Luther in one of his castles for more than a
year, during which time the reformer was engaged in trans-
lating the Bible into German. When he emerged from his
retirement the Emperor was far too much engrossed in the war
to deal with him.
The war lasted, with only brief intervals of peace, throughout
the Emperor's reign. On more than one occasion, when peace
was established, Charles announced his intention of dealing
with Luther and his followers, who were now very numerous,
especially among the princes and peoples of North Germany.
On one of these occasions a number of princes issued a protest
against, the Emperor’s edict, and henceforth the term “Pro-
testant was used of the followers of Luther. But before the
Emperor could take any action the war began again. When
Luther died in 1546 neither he nor his supporters had been
seriously molested. Some years after their leader’s death the
Protestants found themselves at war with Charles, but in 1555,
s ortly before the Emperor’s abdication, it was agreed that the
re lgion of every German state should be settled by its prince,
so t lat Lutheran princes could compel their subjects to be
ut eran, and Catholic princes could force their people to
remain Catholic. The Empire was almost equally divided in
the matter, the strength of the Lutherans being in the north.
. n Calvin was a Frenchman. Born in 1509, he was
Frf^ ed f iV h * P nesth °od. Suspected of heresy, he left
h . 6 i 1 n ^ iy ed 7 - a t * n ? e at Basel, where he produced a
ol • • ? which he set forth his ideas of
^ianity and the Christian Church. In 1536 he was invited
42
THE TUDOR PERIOD
to live at Geneva, a small independent city of Switzerland.
There he was able to put his ideas into force. He proved to
be so strict that the Genevans exiled him in 1538, but much--*'
disorder broke out in his absence, and he was asked to return
in 1541. He ruled the city till his death in 1564. *
His system was very severe, and was in most ways, though
not in all, entirely opposed to that of Rome. Every citizen
was compelled to belong to the Church of Geneva and to obey
its rules. The lives of the people were strictly regulated, even
the cut and colour and material of their clothes being pre-
scribed. Many pastimes were forbidden. Little religious
ceremony was permitted, and places of worship were made as
plain as possible. Calvin persecuted and severely punished
those who disagreed with his system and his doctrine, in this
respect imitating the practice of the Roman Church.
Had his influence been limited to Geneva he would have
been hardly worthy of mention. But Geneva was open to
reformers who were compelled to fly from persecution in
other countries. Such men became Calvinists upon coming to
Geneva, and when it was possible for them to return to their
native land they spread Calvin's views. Many Englishmen
fled to Geneva in the days of Mary Tudor. When Elizabeth
became Queen they returned to England and formed a Cal-
vinistic group known as the Puritans — a group which was
destined to exert a remarkable influence on English history. Cal-
vinists were to be found, in time, in many countries, in France
and the Netherlands, in England and Scotland, in many states
of the Holy Roman Empire, and, later on, in North America.
Luther and Calvin were the two most notable of the con-
tinental reformers. Many others might be mentioned, among
them Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss, who was responsible for the
establishment of Protestantism in some of the cantons. Calvin's
influence on the world was far greater than that of Luther,
whose doctrine scarcely spread outside the Empire, except into
the Scandinavian peninsula and Denmark.
Thus began the Reformation. It will be noticed, however,
that this movement, in spite of its name, did nothing to reform
the Church. The effect of the “ Reformation " was that large
numbers of people left the Church in disgust and formed new
religious bodies. The “ Reformation," in short, was a great
split — a great schism. The real reforming of the Church was
to come later.
CHAPTER IX
THE COUNTER-REFORMATION
It has been pointed out that the Reformation resulted in large
numbers of people leaving the Church. Unless this loss could
be checked, there would in course of time be nothing left of
the original united Church — or, at the most, a mere fragment.
In order that such an undesirable result might be averted real
reforms had to be undertaken within the Church, for so long
as the evils continued more and more people would abandon
it as corrupt.
This attempt at reform in the Catholic Church was called
the Counter-Reformation. (This does not mean “against
reformation," but “against the Reformation," i.e. “against
the movement called the Reformation.") l 'lt was largely the
work of the best men in the Church, who realised that unless
some reform was undertaken there would be further losses,
that already whole peoples had turned away from the Church,
and that in several other countries there was a possibility that
the same thing might happen. Unless the Church would
reform itself it might even come to an end. It may be added
that the so-called Reformation also was brought about by
earnest men who were distressed at the deplorable state of
religion. Both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation,
therefore, were the work of men of the same type — in the one
case breaking away from the Church, in the other case
remaining within it.
A group of cardinals who favoured reform came into existence
and by their effort several reforming Popes were from time
r^ mC / e / tCd n worst ^uses of the Church were
f°ff P u P r of u tbc sixteenth century set a higher
st ^E°ard of life before their followers.
The work of reform was undertaken systematically by the
Conned of Trent. This was a great isembly of bishops
Tnr T Pe ,° ple m the Church which met at Trent,
near the border of Italy and the Tyrol. For various reasons
43
44 THE TUDOR PERIOD
it achieved little at its earlier meetings, in 1545 and 1552.
There was for a time some hope of reaching an agreement with
the German Protestants, but this was not brought about,
and only when the Council met for its final sessions in 1562-3
did it accomplish its real work. It drew up rules for the con-
duct and education of the clergy (bishops as well as priests),
and it drew up a statement of the doctrines of the Roman
Catholic Church. This document is regarded as the basis of
Roman Catholic teaching to-day. The Council thus achieved
reform in certain directions. It did not attempt, however, to
touch the headship of the Church. The power of the Pope
was left intact. From the fact that people who wish to defend
the Roman Catholic faith refer to the decrees of the Council
of Trent this assembly has been called “The Shield of the
^Counter-Reformation.”
But the aim of the Counter-Reformation was not merely to
reform the Church in order to prevent further losses — it was
hoped to recover what had already been lost. For this purpose
the Inquisition was used — an instrument sometimes called
“The Sword of the Counter-Reformation.” Actually there
were two Inquisitions. The Papal Inquisition, with six
cardinals at its head, worked in Italy and in certain states of
the Holy Roman Empire. The more famous Spanish Inquisi-
tion operated throughout Spanish dominions. The latter
organisation had been founded in the time of King Ferdinand,
and its original purpose was to seek out Jews and Moors who
had been converted to Christianity and had relapsed to their
earlier religion. These people were not subject to persecution
while they retained the faith of their race, but if, as was some-
times the case, they became Christian, they were constantly
suspected of secretly practising the religion they had abandoned,
and it was for this reason that the Spanish Inquisition was
established, many years before the Reformation began. When
Protestantism appeared, therefore, the Inquisition was already
in existence and was ready to deal with it. It was willing
to receive secret and even anonymous denunciations. Its
victims were arrested and examined, and very few were
released. The method of examination involved the use of
torture in order to extort a confession, but torture was not
used as a punishment. When a confession of heresy was
obtained torture ceased, and the heretic was handed over to
the state officers to be burned. Terrible though the Inquisition
THE COUNTER-REFORMATION 45
was, its members were not mere brutal ruffians. They sincerely
believed that men and women who became heretics were
doomed to eternal punishment, and that it was true kindness to
inflict pain in this world in order to save the heretic from an
eternity of pain hereafter. And though death by burning was
an awful punishment it was thought to be right to inflict it
in order to keep others true to the Catholic faith, so that their
souls might be saved.
It is often stated that persecution never succeeds in its
object, since many people who sympathise with the suffering
martyr become converted to his views. This may be true
sometimes. In England the Marian persecution made more
Protestants than it burned. In the Netherlands the Spanish
Inquisition utterly failed to stamp out heresy. In France
some Huguenots were burned, but the number of Huguenots
increased. But in Spain itself and in its Italian possessions
the Inquisition was successful, and the Protestants were
exterminated.
The Society of Jesus was a new religious order, founded by
Ignatius Loyola, which devoted itself to the special work of
recovering for the Church what had been lost. It was unlike
any order of monks hitherto established. The Jesuits, who
are sometimes called “The Soldiers of the Counter-Reforma-
tion, had no special dress; they did not devote themselves
to the worship of God behind monastic walls; they did not
even observe the fast s and feasts of the Church if such
observance interfered with their duties. They were organised
in a number of grades, and every member was bound to
give instant obedience to the commands of his superior.
The General, at the head of the Order, wielded so much
power that in after years he was sometimes called “The Black
1 °^j e ’ r ^ e mbers °f the Order were employed in various
kinds of work according to their special capacity. Some were
preachers, many were teachers, and a number were employed
as misjuonanes to countries in which Protestantism had gained
a nrm hold. They had to enter in secret and in disguise and
proceeded cautiously with the work of making converts. Many,
too, were engaged in mission work among heathen tribes in
new y- iscovered lands, and Christianity was carried to the
°i No «h and South America and to the peoples of
* t a East b y missionaries. Many of them suffered
tyr om at the hands of those whom they went to convert.
THE TUDOR PERIOD
46
but their fate did not deter others from following them. It
should be added that Jesuit missionaries did useful work of
another kind, in exploring the lands to which they were sent.
Much of our knowledge of the Great Lakes and rivers of
North America was gained originally from them.
But neither the Council of Trent nor the Inquisition nor the
Jesuits succeeded in restoring unity to Christianity. In the
main, those lands which had broken away from Rome did not
return to their obedience to the Pope. But those which had
remained faithful continued so, and the Church of Rome
experienced no further losses. To recover what had been
lost, however, required sterner measures, and Spain under-
took the work of reconverting the revolted countries by force.
A number of wars of religion followed, in every one of which
Spain was the papal champion. From 1572 to 1609 she was
fighting to recover the Netherlands, which had rebelled against
hei, one reason for the revolt being that the Dutch had become
Protestant. From 1587 to 1604 she was at war with England
because this country under Elizabeth had become the leader
of the Protestant powers. From 1618 to 1648 she took part
in the Thirty Years War in the Holy Roman Empire, one
object of which was to compel the Lutheran states to become
Catholic. Though in these wars she was able to use vast
stores of treasure from the New World she was unsuccessful in
all of them, and the Reformation survived, so that the world
contains to-day countries which are Protestant as well as others
which have remained Catholic. Neither form of Christianity
has been able to destroy the other.
CHAPTER X
THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND
The Church had existed in England since very early times.
Christianity was introduced into this country during the
period of Roman rule. With the departure of the Romans
and the coming of the English heathenism prevailed for a
time, but the mission of St. Augustine, beginning in 597,
resulted in the conversion of the English, and since that time
the Church has existed continuously in England.
For many centuries all Englishmen were regarded as
members of the Church of England. Many of them were not
very good men, but all, whether good or bad, were church-
men. The Church was co-extensive with the nation. The
same body of men which formed the English nation formed the
English Church. These men when at work or at war were
the nation; when at prayer they were the Church.
It is sometimes thought that nation and Church differed
in that the one was ruled by the king and the other by the
Pope. This was not the case. The King of England in early
times was master of his subjects, whether they were at work or
war, or at prayer. He was head of the Church as well as of
the nation. The king appointed the bishops, and they were
members of his Great Council. At meetings of this Great
Council, Church affairs as well as national affairs were dis-
cussed and settled. A Pope might not even be recognised in
England without the king’s consent. Though the Pope was
usually treated with respect and was regarded as the most
important bishop in Christendom, he could do little in England
against the will of the king.
^ ear I2I 3» however. King John, who for some years
had been engaged in a bitter dispute with the Pope, suddenly
D* tteC u became the Pope's vassal, and henceforth
the Pope had much greater power in this country than he had
had hitherto. From the time of King John the Pope was
47
48 THE TUDOR PERIOD
master of the English Church until his authority was destroyed
by Henry VIII.
This state of affairs, lasting over three centuries, did not
meet with the entire approval of English people., There was
no reason why papal rule of the Church should be worse than
royal rule; as a matter of fact, it was worse. The kings had
tried to keep order in religious as well as in other matters in
England. But the Popes failed to use their authority for the
advancement of true religion. They used it, rather, to extort
money from this country for themselves dftd their favourites.
Newly-appointed bishopsjtad to pay their first year's income,
called annates, to the Pope. But if a vacant bishopric was
filled by the appointment of another bishop the vacancy so
caused was filled by the Pope, who might appoint yet another
existing bishop, causing yet another vacancy to be filled by him,
and so on. Each of the moves in this game of general post
involved the payment of annates to Rome. Important posts
in the English Church were sometimes filled by the Pope
appointing foreign ecclesiastics who never came to England
and never attempted to carry out the duties of their
positions, which they held only because of the revenues they
received.
Many important legal cases were tried by ecclesiastical
courts instead of by the national courts. It was possible to
appeal from the decisions of these courts to the Court of Rome,
but such appeal was very costly on account of the heavy fees
which had to be paid to the Roman court and its officials, and
to the Roman lawyers.
It may thus be seen that there were many ways in which
Englishmen desired Church reform. As has been already
stated, John Wycliffe, a priest in the fourteenth century, was
one of the earliest reformers, and he maintained that most
of the evils of his time were due to the great wealth of the
Church, which attracted many men to the priesthood in hope
of gain. If, as he proposed, this wealth were given away and
the Church became poor, as Christ and his apostles had been
poor, only good men would become priests and their people
would willingly contribute to their support. But Wycliffe s
followers, the Lollards, were not powerful enough to achieve
anything, and for another century the abuses continued.
At the beginning of the Tudor period another reform
movement began. The Oxford Reformers were men who had
THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 49
met at the University and who were devoted to the study of
Greek. Their researches into the Greek New Testament had
impressed them with the contrast between the state of the
Church in apostolic times and its condition in their own.
They never questioned the Catholic faith and had no desire to
break up the Church as the continental Protestants were doing.
But they wanted priests to lead holier lives, and they thought
that this result would be achieved by the spread of education
among the clergy. One of the most notable of this group
was John Colet, who became Dean of St. Paul’s, and founded
St. Paul’s School, of which Lilly, another of the Oxford
Reformers, became the first master.
In the earlier part of his reign Henry VIII had little sympathy
with the Reformation. The second son of his father, he had,
while his brother lived, been educated for the priesthood. He
was Duke of York, and it was intended that in years to come he
should become Archbishop of York. Arthur's death changed
his career, but he never lost his interest in theological questions,
and he issued a book called The Defence of the Seven Sacraments
against the teaching of Luther. For this effort in defence of
the faith the Pope conferred upon him the title of "Defender
of the Faith." And throughout the latter part of his reign,
in spite of the changes which occurred, Henry deserved the
title, for he never wavered in his belief in the Catholic faith.
He died, as he had lived, a Catholic.
But the refusal of the Pope to settle the vexed question of
his marriage with Catherine of Aragon angered him, and he
resolved to take the matter in his own hands. For more than
three centuries England had been subject to the Bishop of
Rome in matters ecclesiastical, and the King determined to
recover that authority over his subjects in religious matters
which his predecessors in early times had enjoyed. In 1529
he called a Parliament which continued to exist for seven
years. It is known to historians as the Reformation Parlia-
ment, because it passed a senes of acts which utterly destroyed
the authority of the Pope in England. These acts were no
doubt suggested by the King himself, but they were passed
readily, and this fact seems to show that the nation agreed
with him that the Pope's power had existed in England too
long, and that it had not been used properly.
In 1532 an Act of Annates was passed. Newly-appointed
bishops were forbidden to pay their annates to the Pope, and
50
THE TUDOR PERIOD
a further act ordered that these payments were to be made in
future to the King. A clause in the Act stated, however, that
it was not to come into force unless and until the King wished
it to do so. Probably it was intended to convey a hint to the
Pope that, if the divorce was granted forthwith and without
further delay, no more would be heard of the Act. But the
divorce was not granted, and the Act was put into force. The
first step in the separation from Rome had been taken. Papal
revenue from England was cut off.
In 1533 an Act of Appeals was passed. Appeals from English
ecclesiastical courts to the Court of Rome were forbidden, and
any cases which had already been referred to Rome were to ^
be recalled. All such cases were to be dealt with in the court ^
of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This act resulted in the
withdrawal of the King's case from Rome, and its presentation
before the Archbishop's court at Dunstable. There was no
long delay here, and Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, pronounced that Catherine was not, and never had
been, Henry's lawful wife. In this way a further step m the
destruction of papal power in England was taken. Papal
jurisdiction over English ecclesiastical courts was at an end.
The Pope, however, refused to recognise these proceedings
in England, and in 1534 issued his decision on the case of the
King's marriage. He declared Catherine of Aragon to be
Henry's lawful wife, and ordered him to return to her. out
the Pope was too late. Catherine was in'a convent, and Anne
Boleyn occupied her place.
In 1534 the Act of Supremacy was passed. The King was
declared to be “ Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
England," and it was asserted that the Bishop of Rome h
no authority or jurisdiction in England. The separation was
C ° What C exactly had the King done, and why had he done it?
He had destroyed foreign authority over the Church ( t
the nation) of England, and had asserted his own power over
his subjects. For a king to take this attitude was, as has been
shown, no new thing. The king in early time f ^ “
of the Church, though he did not hold any sueh title as Henry
now assumed. Henry merely restored a sate = of ^35 '
had existed centuries earlier, although, indeed, the P h
then regarded in England with respect, while hence fort
wi to be treated as an enemy. Without doubt, Henry would
THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND 5*
not have done this at this time if the Pope had obliged him m
the matter of his divorce. Yet the nation as a whole approved
of the King's action, for the people had long been weary of
the way Roman power had been exercised here, and they were
glad of its abolition. If the Pope’s action had been different
his power in England would have lasted a few years longer,
but sooner or later it would have come to an end. The divorce
question was, indeed, the immediate cause of the break, but if
no divorce case had ever arisen the separation would ultimately
have come.
It must be clearly understood that Henry did not become a
Protestant. He had been brought up in the Catholic faith,
he fully believed it, and he held it to the end of his life. People
who thought he would go further and embrace Protestantism
were mistaken. No change was made in the doctrines and in
the services of the Church, and to most of the common people
the break with Rome made little difference. The Latin mass
was still said or sung in churches, and to most men in towns
and villages throughout the land the change in headship was
merely from a far-distant Pope, whom they had never seen, to
a far-distant King whom most of them had never seen.
And it must be understood that Henry did not found a
new church. As had been the case since the time of St.
Augustine, the Church of England was co-extensive with the
English nation. It was no longer friendly with the Church of
Rome, and it was subject to a new head, but it was the same
Church of England, with the same doctrine and ceremony,
the same bishops and priests. The Catholic Church on the
continent continued to acknowledge the headship of the Pope,
and claimed that it alone was Catholic. The Church in this
country renounced papal headship but claimed still to be
Catholic. In other countries those who had cast off Roman
rule called themselves Protestants, but the Church of England
has never applied this term to itself, although it necessarily
became more or less friendly with continental Protestants on
account of the common opposition to Rome.
A good deal remained to be done before the King could
make his claim to authority over the Church effective in every
part of the country, and this will be described in the next
chapter. But it may be observed that his action was in
harmony with the general course of Tudor policy in increasing
the power of the Crown. It has already been pointed out that
52 THE TUDOR PERIOD
at the beginning of the period only the power of the barons
and the power of the Church could rival that of the Crown.
Henry VII had subjugated the baronage. His son established
royal authority over the Church, and so completed the edifice
of Tudor absolutism.
CHAPTER XI
THOMAS CROMWELL AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES
Wolsey lost the King’s favour in 1529 and died in 1530.
Henry selected as his new adviser Thomas Cromwell, who
for some years had been Wolsey's secretary, and who, there-
fore, was able to conduct the royal affairs efficiently and without
loss of continuity, since for some time he had been familiar
with them. The new minister, like his great predecessor, was
a man of humble birth. (It is clear, from the employment
of Empson and Dudley by Henry VII and of Wolsey and
Cromwell by Henry VIII, that the Tudors did not look to
great nobles for advice and support in the work of government ;
their policy was to reduce noble power as much as possible
and to make use of men of humbler birth.) For ten years,
during the whole period of the separation from Rome and the
dissolution of the monasteries, Cromwell was Henry’s right-
hand man and devoted himself to the King’s interests.
Cranmer in 1533 pronounced that Henry’s marriage with
Catherine was null and void, and the King immediately married
Anne Boleyn. Of this marriage was bom a daughter Eliza-
beth, who was declared to be heir to the throne instead of the
Princess Mary, who was henceforth to be styled the Lady
Mary Tudor. But the King's action was too much for some
of his subjects, and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More,
and the Bishop of Rochester, John Fisher, were put to death
for refusing to take an oath recognising Anne as Henry's lawful
wife, though they were willing to accept Elizabeth as heir to
the throne.
After the passing of the Act of Supremacy in 1534 the
King s attention was turned to the monasteries, of which there
were some hundreds in the land. In time past these establish-
ments had been of great importance from many points of view.
To them might come men and women who, disliking the
violence and wickedness of feudal times, wished to lead a
religious life. Regarding the world as an evil place, they turned
53
54 THE TUDOR PERIOD
their thoughts away from it and prepared for the life of the
world to come. The monasteries were centres of religion and
learning at a time and in a land which reckoned little of
either. In them books were produced by the patient labour
of the monks. Children received instruction in the monastic
schools. Beggars were relieved by monastic charity. Travellers
were sheltered and the sick were tended.
But monasteries were fallen upon evil days. Schools which
did not depend upon any monastic foundation were coming
into existence. Through the establishment of inns they were
used less than formerly for the entertainment of travellers.
The invention of the printing-press had eased the labours of
the monastic scribes. And, above all, ever fewer men and
women sought to lead the religious life. Times and ideas
were changing, and the thought of cutting themselves off from
the world no longer appealed as formerly to devout men and
women. People were not less religious than those of an earlier
age, but they thought they could serve God better by living
holy lives in the world than by entering a monastery.
Consequently, many of the religious houses were by no means
full, and the applicants for admission were year by year
fewer in number.
The great abbeys had always been independent establish-
ments — independent, that is, of the archbishops and bishops
who ruled over other features of church life. No bishop might
inspect one of these privileged monasteries. If he should
happen to visit it he would no doubt be received with great
courtesy, but he would be made to feel that he was only a
guest, possessing no authority over the house. The abbot
was his ecclesiastical equal, for the abbot owned no superior
but the Pope. Sometimes, indeed, an Archbishop of Canter-
bury would officially visit and inspect a few monasteries, not,
however, because he was Archbishop of Canterbury, but
because he happened to be a Papal Legate.
How would the monasteries meet the new order of things f
The Pope's authority was gone from the land; in its place
stood the King's. Would they give the same allegiance to the
King as they had hitherto accorded to the Pope ? Henry and
Cromwell thought they would not, and that the habit of
centuries would not be so easily broken. While the monasteries
existed the Pope would not lack followers in England, no
matter how many acts were passed by Parliament. Clearly,
DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES 55
then, the King's work must be completed by putting an end
to the monasteries.
Henry has often been charged with destroying these houses
of religion because he wished to enrich himself with their
wealth. Very probably he was glad of the opportunity of
taking their possessions, but this was not the only reason for
his action. He dissolved the monasteries and expelled the
monks and nuns because they looked upon the Pope and not
the King as their real superior.
Yet the work could hardly be begun unless some pretext
could be found to justify what was to be done. To give the
real reason would be to invite denials. Abbots and priors,
monks and nuns, would protest their loyalty to the King, and
it would be difficult to prove anything against them. A pre-
text was found in the condition of the monasteries. Cromwell,
who was now the King's “Vicar-General in Matters Ecclesi-
astical,'' sent commissioners to inspect the monasteries and
report upon what they found. The task was very great, and if
it were to be done thoroughly it would take a very long time.
But the “visitors” probably understood what sort of reports
they were expected to produce — and they produced them.
The monks were idle, neglecting the worship of God; lazy,
doing no work; gluttonous, devoting themselves to the pleasures
of the table; and evil, committing all manner of sin! Such a
mass of iniquity was brought to light that it was the clear duty
of the new Head of the Church to put an end to it! This,
and more than this, was to be inferred from the report of the
commissioners. The truth is, probably, that the monks were
neither so bad as their enemies said they were, nor so good as
their friends contended. Under a strong abbot a house was
kept in order and everything was as it should be. Under a
weak abbot the monks would do as they liked. But the com-
1 missioners found no good anywhere. Their report is almost
all black, and as evidence of the state of the monasteries it
cannot be trusted.
But it was good enough for the King and his minister. They
proceeded with some caution, however, and in 1536 an Act of
Parliament was passed for the dissolution of the smaller
religious houses (those with an annual income of less than £200).
The property of these establishments was to be given to the
King, and the monks and nuns were to be moved into the larger
houses, which had ample room for them.
56
THE TUDOR PERIOD
This was the only part of Henry’s ecclesiastical work which
met with any serious opposition. In the north of England
the people were strongly attached to the old ways, and a
formidable rebellion broke out in Yorkshire. The rebels
intended to march on a “Pilgrimage of Grace" to London to
see the King, and to demand of him the restoration of the
monasteries and the dismissal of Cromwell. The Duke of
Norfolk met them with fair words and persuaded them to go
home, promising to put their views before the King. He did
so, and Henry marched north in 1537 and hanged a number of
the rebels. To make such events less likely in future he
established the Council of the North, which for more than a
century upheld the royal authority in the northern counties.
The President of the Council of the North might be described
as a viceroy of the north of England.
The greater monasteries remained to be dealt with, and a
different course was pursued from that which was taken with
the smaller houses. Some of the abbots and abbesses were
visited by Cromwell's agents and were persuaded to yield up
their abbeys to the King. They were told that if this were done
peaceably he would be generous in his treatment of such
obedient subjects; obstinate refusal, on the other hand, would
provoke his anger. Some abbots yielded, and it was then easy
to bring increased pressure to bear upon the remainder, with
the result that, with only three exceptions, all abbeys and
priories in the kingdom were surrendered to the King before
the end of the year 1540. The abbots of Glastonbury, Reading,
and Colchester refused to yield. Charges were trumped up
against them, they were put to death, and their abbeys were
forfeited to the Crown.
The promise of generous treatment of the obedient was
kept. Most of the dispossessed monks and nuns were given
pensions (though those under twenty-four years of age were
released from their vows and were sent into the world to earn
their living as best they could). These pensions seem to have
been paid regularly. In the case of Barking Abbey, for
example, the Lady Abbess, Dorothy Barley, surrendered the
abbey to the Crown in 18th November, 1539 * She received
a pension of two hundred marks per annum, and she is known
to have been alive and in receipt of her pension in i 54 °* ln
view of the greater value of money at that time she must have
been able to live in comfort on this mcome. All the otner
DISSOLUTION OF THE MONASTERIES 57
nuns received pensions, of varying amounts, the smallest
being four marks per annum. Even this small amount was
sufficient to keep them from starvation. John Draper, the last
prior of Christchurch, in Hampshire, was granted a pension,
also of two hundred marks per annum, which he is known to
have received until his death, several years after the surrender
of the priory.
The whole of the monastic property passed to the Crown.
If these ecclesiastical lands had been retained permanently
as Crown lands the monarchy would have been much enriched,
and it is possible that the course of English history in the
Stuart period might have been different. But Henry did not
retain his new possessions. Six new bishoprics were estab-
lished, and some monastic lands were set aside as endowments
for these new posts, while monastic churches were selected
as cathedrals for the new prelates. Some of the wealth
obtained at this time was used for national defence. Ships
were built, dockyards equipped, coast defences strengthened.
But the greater part of monastic property passed by gift or
sale into private hands, and many men who stood well at court
laid the foundation of their fortunes in this way. Thus a
class of new landowners arose. Henry has been blamed for
squandering these lands. But he had good reason for doing
this. If he had kept all monastic possessions in his own hands
it would have been easy for some future king to undo his work
and to restore the monasteries and the power of the Pope.
But if ever such a course were to be suggested the new land-
owners would, to a man, oppose it. A future sovereign would
find it difficult to overthrow King Henry's work.
Thomas Cromwell, the Hammer of the Monks, had done his
work well, but he did not live to see its results fully developed.
As has already been stated, an attempt was made in 1538 to
bring about an alliance between the Emperor and the King
of France against the King of England, and to meet this danger
Cromwell negotiated an alliance between England and the
German Protestant princes, at the same time arranging a
marriage between Henry and the Lady Anne of Cleves.
Henry’s displeasure at a marriage into which he thought he
had been tricked brought Cromwell to the block.
CHAPTER XII
ENGLISH RELIGION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TUDOR PERIOD
( 1535 - 1558 )
For the last twelve years of his reign Henry VIII was a kind
of pope over the English Church. He was keenly interested
in theological matters and he was determined to maintain and
extend his kingly authority. He was, as he had always been,
Catholic in belief, and he insisted upon imposing his will on
the nation. He would not allow his people to become Pro-
testant. There was, indeed, little inclination on their part to
do so, but, here and there, in London and the south-east,
small groups of Protestants were to be found. On the King's
Council were some, known as Men of the New Learning, who
were Protestant at heart, although they were outwardly
Catholic. In so far as they were able to affect the King's
policy their advice and influence were in favour of further
change. Opposed to them were the Men of the Old Learn-
ing, who were antagonistic to any change in the direction
of Protestantism. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas
Cranmer, and the Earl of Hertford, Edward Seymour (the
King’s brother-in-law), were of the New Learning, as was
Thomas Cromwell, while their opponents were led by Stephen
Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and the Duke of Norfolk.
The story of the last few years of the reign is the record of
events brought about by the influence first of one group and
then of the other over the King. It must be remembered,
however, that nobody on the Council dared offer strong opposi-
tion to the King's policy. As Henry grew older and his health
and temper grew worse, to attempt to thwart him was to incur
grave risk of death for “treason.” Whatever their private
opinions might be, all of Henry's councillors were outwardly
Catholic, and all accepted the royal supremacy over the Church.
The dissolution of the monasteries was carried out with the
approval of the New Learning party, and the course of events
which culminated in the fall of the religious houses encouraged
58
ENGLISH RELIGION IN TUDOR PERIOD 59
some people to expect the King to go farther and become a
Protestant. They were undeceived in 1539, when Henry
caused the Statute of Six Articles to be passed through
Parliament. It enumerated six points of Catholic doctrine and
practice which every one was to accept, and severe penalties
were threatened against all who refused. Rejection of any
one of five of them was to be visited with imprisonment and
loss of property. The denial of the sixth, the doctrine of
Transubstantiation, was punishable with death at the stake.
(Transubstantiation was the doctrine that the bread and
wine used in the mass, when consecrated by the priest, were
changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.) This terrible
law made it clear that the King had no intention of becoming
a Protestant, nor of permitting his subjects to do so. Hugh
Latimer, Bishop of Worcester, resigned his bishopric rather
than accept this law, and risked being sent to the stake. But
Henry had a strong feeling of admiration for Latimer, who
was one of his chaplains, and one of the best and greatest men
of his time. In an age when most men were timid and time-
serving Latimer stood out fearlessly for what he regarded as
the truth, and the King overlooked in him what he would have
punished in most other men.
The Statute of Six Articles was a victory for the Old
Learning. Yet their opponents were able to secure the pub-
lication of the Bible in English in the year 1538. Archbishop
Cranmer supervised its issue, and a copy was placed in every
church throughout the country. The Bible was secured in its
place by means of a chain. People were encouraged to visit
their churches and read the sacred volume, if they could, and,
if they could not, to listen to those who could. The practice
of reading the Bible, which has for four centuries been
characteristic of the English people, began at this time.
A few years later the New Learning secured a further slight
concession from the King. A short form of service in the
English language, consisting of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer,
the Ten Commandments, and a Litany, was issued. It was
intended to be used in churches before mass, and as a prepara-
tion for that service. There was nothing Protestant about it,
but for the first time a service in English was authorised. The
mass was, of course, still said in Latin with all the ancient
ceremonial.
Other religious institutions which possessed property came
6o
THE TUDOR PERIOD
under the King's notice towards the end of his reign. There
were hundreds of chantries in the country, served by chantry
priests, whose regular duty it was to say a mass every day for
the soul of the founder of the chantry, who had left lands
sufficient to provide payment for the priest. Though the
Statute of Six Articles had expressly ordered masses to be said
for the souls of the dead, the King now ordered the suppression
of the chantries on the ground that they were superstitious.
Their property was taken by the Crown. The dissolution of
the monasteries had been undertaken because they were
strongholds of papal power; the dissolution of the chantries
had no such excuse. It was simply due to royal greed.
The gilds were associations of craftsmen in all the large
towns. Most of them had been in existence for hundreds of
years, and were very wealthy. It was usual for rich gilds
to use part of their revenues for religious purposes, and the
King at this time ordered an inquiry into this use of gild
property. That part of the wealth of the gilds which was
devoted to religious purposes was to be confiscated (though this
measure was not actually carried out until the following reign).
It was impossible to distinguish between what was used for
religious and what for other purposes, and the gilds suffered
severely; they ceased, in fact, to be of any importance, except
in London.
Such measures as these were not really connected with
religion at all; they were instances of plunder under a religious
pretext. They help to show how the King's character
deteriorated towards the end of the reign. Yet Henry re-
mained Catholic to the day of his death. No Englishman was
allowed to become a Protestant, and a few who defied the
Statute of Six Articles paid the penalty at the stake. But no
severe persecution occurred — nothing, at least, to stir the
feelings of the bulk of the nation.
When Henry VIII died in 1547 his son Edward VI (whose
mother was Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour) was a boy
of nine, and some kind of regency was necessary. Henry
arranged for this in his will, and devised a scheme which, if
carried into effect, would prevent the making of extensive
changes during his son's boyhood. A Regency Council of
sixteen members, about equally chosen from among the Old
Learning and the New Learning, was to govern the country,
and Henry hoped that the division of opinion which would
ENGLISH RELIGION IN TUDOR PERIOD 61
exist would prevent both a movement towards Protestantism
and a return to papal authority. He further provided that
Edward on reaching the age of twenty-four should be em-
powered to annul anything done during his minority. The
Earl of Hertford, one of the sixteen, was disappointed that
the late King had not named him Protector, since he was the
brother of Jane Seymour and uncle of the new King. He
persuaded the Council, however, to give him the position, and
for the first two years of the reign Henry’s arrangements fell
to the ground. Hertford became Duke of Somerset.
The new Protector was a man of no great ability. He had
been associated with the New Learning party, and now that
Henry was dead he no longer concealed his sympathy with
Protestantism. \ The Six Articles were repealed and priests
were allowed to marry. Old religious customs were dis-
continued. Even the Lenten fast was disregarded, and Cranmer,
who followed the Protector’s lead, was the first Archbishop of
Canterbury to eat meat in Lent. In 1549 a Book of Common
Prayer was issued, containing services in the English language
to be used in churches. For the most part they were trans-
lations of Latin services that had been in use hitherto, and
the tone of the book was Catholic and not Protestant. But in
other respects Somerset and his friends aimed at introducing
Protestantism. Commissioners were sent to visit the churches
throughout the country and to remove from them all images
and pictures and other articles of value. This plundering of
the churches enriched the party in power. It was exceedingly
unpopular. In hundreds of country villages the people who
had accepted without demur the changes made by Henry VIII
watched sullenly the plundering of the church in which they
had worshipped all their lives. Small wonder if they thought
that Protestantism was merely a form of plunder, and that
uiey preferred the Catholicism in which they had been reared.
Numerous petty revolts occurred, all easily suppressed. A
rather serious rebellion broke out in Devonshire, and this, too,
was put down. But the fact that these risings took place shows
that the Protector's proceedings were distasteful to the people.
Somerset fell from power in 1549, and for the rest of the
reign the country was ruled by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick,
President of the Council. Warwick was a man of no principle,
w o decided that his interests lay in siding with the Protestants.
tie arranged for the issue of a second Book of Common Prayer,
62
THE TUDOR PERIOD
which differed from the first in many ways and was much
more Protestant in tone. Some of the bishops of Catholic
opinions were removed from their sees, and Gardiner of
Winchester and Bonner of London were imprisoned in the
Tower. Some attempt was made to instruct the English
people in Protestant principles, and a number of continental
Protestant preachers visited England for this purpose. War-
wick's rule was marked by a further plundering of church
property. Not merely movable goods, but church lands and
property of every description were seized in the name of
religion by the unscrupulous gang which was associated with
Warwick in ruling the country.
But Warwick’s rule was drawing to a close. The young King
was evidently dying, and at his death the throne was to pass
to his half-sister, the Papist Mary. Warwick's power would
be ended when this occurred, and he schemed to place his
daughter-in-law. Lady Jane Grey, on the throne instead of
Mary. He hoped thus to continue to be the real ruler of the
land. When Edward died, in July, 1553, Warwick, who had
now taken the title of Duke of Northumberland, proclaimed
Lady Jane Grey Queen, and attempted to seize Mary. His
troops deserted him, and he was forced to change sides and
profess to support Mary, who, however, placed him and Lady
Jane in the Tower. He was beheaded for his treason, and after
a time Lady Jane suffered a similar fate.
Mary's accession was made possible by the fact that the
people of London and the home counties were strongly in her
favour, preferring a Catholic to a Protestant Queen. While
the nation had readily accepted the religious changes made by
Henry VIII it was disgusted with Protestant proceedings in
the time of his son, and gladly welcomed one who would, they
thought, restore her father's system. If she had been content
to do this her reign would have been a success. But she wanted
to do more; she wanted to undo not only her brother's but her
father's work. , . TT
To return to the state of affairs at the end of Henry s reign
was an easy task. Foreign Protestant preachers were exiled,
the use of the Book of Common Prayer was forbidden, the
Latin mass was restored, and priests who had married were
ordered to separate from their wives. The Six Articles were
restored, and the bishops who had been removed in the 5**8“
of Edward VI recovered their sees. In ordering these things
ENGLISH RELIGION IN TUDOR PERIOD 63
the Queen met with no opposition. But she was head of the
Church, and she wished at the earliest possible moment to
restore ecclesiastical authority in England to the Pope, to whom
in her opinion it rightfully belonged. But her Parliaments
contained many men who held monastic lands, and they feared
that the re-establishment of papal power would be accompanied
by the restoration of the religious houses. Mary at length
promised not to insist on the restoration of the monasteries,
and Parliament then consented to repeal the Act of Supremacy.
An English Cardinal at Rome, Reginald Pole, a personal friend
of Mary, was sent to England as Papal Legate, and the English
Church was solemnly reunited to that of Rome. It should
be added that those monasteries which with their lands re-
mained in the possession of the Crown were restored by the
Queen.
Thus Henry VIIFs work was undone. The restoration of
Catholic worship was carried out with the approval of the
nation; the revival of papal power was much less popular, and
Mary's subsequent proceedings were even less to the liking of
her people. For she now embarked upon a course of persecu-
tion. The number of Protestants in the country was not large,
but it was not altogether insignificant, and the Queen regarded
the extinction of heresy as necessary to the completion of the
task to which she had committed herself. No formal “ Inquisi-
tion was established, but the work of dealing with heretics
was assigned to the bishops, who, with two or three exceptions,
had little liking for it. By an old law, passed against the
Lollards m 1401, the burning of heretics was permitted, and
Mary acted upon it. Between 1555 and 1558 nearly three
hundred persons suffered death at the stake for their faith.
I his persecution was carried on very unequally throughout the
country. Bonner, Bishop of London, and Cardinal Pole, who
was appointed to Canterbury in succession to Cranmer, were
the most energetic persecutors. (Gardiner of Winchester
died before the persecution had fully begun.) Most of the
rotestants, therefore, suffered in London and the neighbouring
counties. The smallness of the number of burnings in the
remoter parts of Ehgland was perhaps due to the fact that there
were very few Protestants in these regions, and also that the
IS ^ 0 P S l. W ^ were f ar£ her from London, and not immediately
un er t e Queen s eye, refrained from looking for what they
did not wish to find. Most of those who suffered were of
64 THE TUDOR PERIOD
humble birth — artisans and labourers, housewives and appren-
tices, and even children. Five bishops, however, suffered.
Ferrars of St. David’s, Hooper of Gloucester, Ridley, formerly
of London, Latimer, formerly of Worcester, and Cranmer,
Archbishop of Canterbury, died at the stake for their faith.
Cranmer had held his position for many years. He had been
appointed before Henry VIII had separated from Rome and
his appointment had received the sanction of the Pope. It was
the rule of the Roman Church that an archbishop could be
degraded and removed only with the Pope's permission, and
this necessarily involved delay. But at length Cranmer was
removed from his archbishopric and was degraded from the
priesthood. He was a timid man and feared the manner of
his death. In the hope of avoiding the flame he recanted his
faith. But Mary had no mercy for the man who had pro-
nounced her mother's divorce, and when Cranmer found that
he was to suffer in spite of his recantation he withdrew it and
met his end with courage which is the more praiseworthy in
view of his naturally shrinking disposition.
The persecution in England was not severe in comparison
with what had happened in some continental countries. (Many
thousands of Protestants had died in the Netherlands under the
Emperor Charles V.) But it was severe enough, and its effect
was altogether different from what Mary had expected. For
three years Englishmen watched with growing horror the
infliction on Protestants, at the average rate of two a week, of
death of inconceivable torment. Hitherto men had recoiled
from Protestantism, which had been presented to them in a
way little to be distinguished from brigandage. Now for the
first time they realised that it was a faith for which men would
face the most awful of deaths. The impression made by
Mary's work has never been effaced from the English mind.
The nation as a whole turned from the one form of the Christian
faith to the other. In 1553 England was at heart Catholic;
in 1558 many people were Protestant. It was not the least
bitter of the thoughts that clouded the Queen's last days that
by her action she had turned her people away from her faith.
Mary's life had been full of disappointments. As a young
girl she had sided with her mother against her father, and had
incurred his displeasure. No longer as Princess Mary, but
merely as the Lady Mary Tudor, she had been banished from
Henry's court. Living almost alone, she had been equally
ENGLISH RELIGION IN TUDOR PERIOD 65
out of favour in her father's and her brother's reigns. The
outburst of popular enthusiasm when she became Queen, and
the clear expression of the nation’s preference for her over
Jane Grey, seemed to indicate that the clouds which had over-
shadowed her early life we re passing away, and that she might
expect a happy and prosperous reign. Her expectation was
not fulfilled. She married Philip, and found that he did not
love her, and, in fact, neglected her. She restored papal
power; yet a new Pope, Paul IV (an enemy of Cardinal Pole),
found fault with her because English monasteries were not
restored. He tried to deprive Pole of the legateship, and to
prevent this Mary had to exercise her royal authority in Eng-
land against the Pope. Mary joined her husband in war with
France and lost Calais. But, above all, she tried to stamp out
Protestantism from the land, and, whether she realised it or
not, she established it firmly in the hearts of the English people.
CHAPTER XIII
THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE IN TUDOR TIMES
Although there were many small towns and a few ports in
England at the beginning of the Tudor period, and although
a few sailors and fishermen toiled upon the sea and a few work-
men in the towns and villages, the great mass of people lived
in the country. England was not a land of townsmen nor of
seamen, but of farmers. In earlier times many of them had
been serfs, bound to work on the lands of their lords, but by
the accession of Henry VII serfdom was almost a thing of the
past. Most Englishmen were free.
For some time before the beginning of the Tudor period a
good deal of cultivated land had been turned into pasture land.
Instead of corn being grown, sheep were reared on some
estates and wool was produced. This change was made because
at certain times labour had been scarce, and a pasture farm does
not require so many shepherds as an arable estate of the same
size needs labourers. Further, there was a ready market in
the Netherlands for all the wool that England could produce.
Much land, of course, continued to be cultivated, and the change
to pasture was chiefly in eastern England. It was possible to
use the many rivers which flow towards the North Sea to carry
the wool to the coast, whence it could be sent to the Netherlands.
This pasture-farming resulted in many people being driven
from the land on which they had earned a living, and most of
them, having no other means of life, resorted to begging and
robbery. Bands of beggars appeared throughout the country.
Things grew worse in the early Tudor period. Pasture -farming
was extended. When Henry VII forbade nobles to keep
retainers, thousands of men who had lived as hangers-on in
baronial castles were turned adrift, men who had fought in
the Wars of the Roses and who had neither the desire nor the
opportunity to work. Such men swelled the numbers of the
vagrants. While the monasteries remained the worst effects
of these evils were not felt, since monastic charity was extended
66
CONDITION OF PEOPLE IN TUDOR TIMES 67
to all who asked for it. But when the monasteries were
dissolved the workless were faced with absolute starvation.
Doles of bread and ale ceased. The monks as a rule had
cultivated their estates, but some of the new owners of monastic
lands turned them into pasture, and before the end of
Henry VIII’s reign the amount of poverty and distress was very
serious indeed. In the reign of Henry VIII an attempt was
made to deal with the problem. It was assumed that beggars
were lazy people who preferred idleness to work, and it was
ordered that they should be punished for not being in settled
employment. The famous Whipping Law was passed. Every
person found begging without licence was to be whipped twice,
“on his bare back, until his back be bloody by reason of such
whipping." After the whipping he was to receive a certificate
that he had been whipped and he might then beg his way
from place to place until he reached his native town or village,
where he was expected to settle down to work. Soldiers who
had been wounded in the wars and were unable to work were
given a licence to beg, which seems to have been the Tudor
substitute for a pension.
This brutal law had little effect in reducing the number
of beggars in the country, and in the reign of Edward VI an
even more barbarous law succeeded it — the Branding Statute.
A person caught wandering without employment was to be
branded with the letter V (for Vagabond) and be compelled to
work as a slave for his captor for the space of three years, during
which time he was to be fed on bread and water and broken
meats and was to be kept at work with stripes. If, later on,
he was again caught, he was to be branded with an S (for Slave)
and was to be enslaved for life. If he attempted to escape he
was to be punished with death. This law, however, was
soon repealed.
The distress of the people in the eastern counties led to a
very serious rebellion in 1549. Thousands of people gathered
under Robert Kett on Mousehold Heath, near Norwich, and
a court was held by the rebels under a large oak-tree, at which
landowners were tried for their “offences" against the people.
The popular complaints were that labourers could get no
employment because of the extensive changes from arable to
pasture, that the common pasture in the villages, on which the
peasants had formerly grazed their oxen, had been seized by
the lords and added to their pasture-farms, and that the rents
68
THE TUDOR PERIOD
of farms were unduly high. The rebellion was put down and
the poor continued to suffer.
In the reign of Queen Mary an attempt was made to relieve
the poor. It was ordered that collections were to be made in
churches and that the money was to be used for the benefit
of the poor in the parish.
In the reign of Elizabeth more vigorous efforts were made
to deal with the question, which, indeed, became somewhat
less serious as time went on. In 1572 the Netherlands revolted
against Spain and fighting continued till 1609. The cloth
industry was ruined, and there was no longer any demand for
English wool. Some of the English pasture-farms returned to
the plough, and more people were again employed on the land.
Others found an occupation in going to sea, for at this time
Englishmen began to venture to the Spanish Main, and there
were many hardy folk who found a life of piratical exploits to
their liking. Trade and industry revived. Yet there were
still many poor, and Elizabeth laid down the principle that
every parish should keep its own poor, and that a house should
be provided in which they should live and be made to toil.
Various laws were passed, but the great Poor Law of 1601
settled these principles. It further enacted that pauper
children should be apprenticed to a trade, so that upon growing
up they might be able to earn their own living and be no
longer a burden upon the parish. The cost of the relief of the
poor was met partly by the fines levied on Roman Catholics
and partly by a poor-rate which all householders were called
upon to pay.
CHAPTER XIV
ELIZABETH'S RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT
( When Elizabeth came to the throne upon her sister’s death
in 1558 she had many important questions to settle. The
problem that required her immediate attention was that of
religion.) Within a quarter of a century men had seen many
changes. The faith of the people and their manner of worship
had been ordered anew every few years. Elizabeth hoped to
make a settlement that should be more lasting and that should
be acceptable, as far as possible, to the whole nation, or, at
least, to the great majority.
Several courses were open from which she might make her
choice. She might follow her sister’s policy, maintain the
connection with Rome and continue to burn Protestants. A
timid woman would probably have done this. Such a course
would have secured the support of King Philip, who wanted
to marry her in order to continue the English alliance against
France. During Mary's reign Elizabeth had acted as a devout
Catholic and had attended mass. But she was a Tudor, and
was too fond of power to wish to yield it to either the Pope
or the King of Spain. Or she might follow her brother’s
policy and become Protestant. She had little liking for this.
And, again, she might follow her father’s policy and maintain
a Church Catholic in doctrine and worship but with the Crown
at the head instead of the Pope.
/ Her personal preference was towards the last of these lines
/ of policy, and as far as she could she pursued it. But times had
changed, and she could not do exactly what Henry had done.
He had been successful because he did not disturb the religion
of the people. They had always been Catholic, and they were
allowed to remain Catholic to the end of his reign. But as a
result of the Marian persecution many people had become
Protestant, and a settlement that would meet with the approval
of the English nation must take into account this growing
Protestant feeling, j
69
70
THE TUDOR PERIOD
At the very beginning of her reign Elizabeth stopped the
burnings and ordered that no more were to take place. A
Parliament met and passed a number of acts which were the
basis of the religious settlement. » An Act of Supremacy was
passed which ended the authority of the Pope in England, and
made the Queen head of the Church, although the actual title
conferred upon her was “Supreme Governor," and not, as
in Henry’s case, “Supreme Head." Monasteries which Mary
had restored were again dissolved and their lands passed to the
Crown. If this had been all the settlement would have been
a restoration of Henry VIII’s system. But more followed.
A Book of Common Prayer was issued, containing the services
which were to be used in Divine worship in churches. It was
in the English language, and was based mainly on the second
book of the reign of Edward VI, but with certain parts taken
from the first book. The Prayer Book was so framed as to
satisfy, as far as possible, the opinions of both Catholics and
Protestants, and some things in it were stated in such vague
language that they might be interpreted in the one way or
in the other. The Queen would not go so far as her brother,-
however, in allowing the clergy to marry. No permission was
given, though, as a matter of fact, many priests did marry
without permission, i /
As has been stated, Elizabeth hoped that her arrangements
would prove acceptable to the nation as a whole. She believed
that few men were really eager for the continuance of papal
authority. Many, however, especially in the north of England,
were still Catholic in opinion, and the Prayer Book contained
little or nothing with which they could not agree. The growing
volume of Protestant opinion might also, she thought, be satis-
fied by it. But it was hardly to be expected that nobody at
all would be found to criticise the settlement, and she had to
decide how to deal with those who would not fall into line*
To burn them would be to repeat her sister's mistake. To
make men endure martyrdom for the sake of their religion
might convert thousands to their views. Elizabeth decided,
therefore, to make no heresy law. Men were not punished in
her reign for holding religious opinions which differed from
those of the Queen. The simple requirement imposed. upon
all men was that they should attend church. Those who
persistently refused were termed recusants, and the .P eI Jf ?
for recusancy was a fine of one shilling per month. blizaDetn
ELIZABETH’S RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT 71
thus differed from her sister in that she punished men for
recusancy, while Mary punished them for heresy. The
greater humanity of Elizabeth’s course of action is shown in
the marked difference between the penalties exacted, and its
superior wisdom is equally evident. An inquiry into men’s
opinions, made with a view to supporting a charge of heresy,
can never be quite satisfactory. There can be no evidence
beyond what is supplied by the accused person, and he may
not speak the truth. The hypocrite and the liar may be
acquitted while the honest, conscientious man is condemned.
But recusancy, which is merely absence from church, is easily
tested.
I For the first twelve years of the reign the religious settlement
seemed to be successful. Most of the nation’"accepted it, at
least to the extent of attending church, and the number of
recusants was small. Even the Papists attended, though they
did not approve, and so avoided any penalty.
But a great blow was made at the settlement in 1570. In
that year the Pope issued a bull in which he excommunicated
and deposed Elizabeth, declaring her to be no longer Queen
of England. He absolved her subjects from their allegiance
and ordered them to cease attendance at services of the English
Church. The English answer was made in the following year,
when Parliament met and passed an act declaring it to be high
treason for any one in England to call the Queen a heretic, a
usurper, or an infidel. It must be acknowledged that this was
a most reasonable enactment. The Queen would have been
unworthy of her position if she had not taken steps to defend
herself from the effect of the papal pronouncement. And the
nation would have deserved to be subjected to Rome and to
Spain if it had not shown its resentment, in the most emphatic
way possible, at the attempt of a foreign bishop to interfere
in English affairs and to say who should or who should not
rule this country.
Roman Catholics were now in a difficult position. To obey
both Pope and Queen was henceforth impossible. Those who
remained loyal to the Queen were disobedient to the Pope, and
could hardly be regarded in future as Roman Catholics. To
obey the Pope was to be disloyal to the Queen. Yet for
several years the penalties for recusancy remained unchanged,
and Papists who refused to attend church were subject only
to the usual fines so long as they said or did nothing against
72
THE TUDOR PERIOD
the Queen. But many of them were involved in plots against
Elizabeth on behalf of Mary Stuart, who was by this time a
prisoner in England. This was of course treason, and the
inevitable penalty followed. Thus, many Roman Catholics
suffered death in the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign, and this
has given rise to the statement that Elizabeth persecuted
Roman Catholics as her sister persecuted Protestants. But
the essential difference is that Mary imposed the penalty of
death for heresy, while Elizabeth put men to death for treason,
and that this would not have been necessary if the Pope had
not forced Elizabeth to defend herself when he pronounced
her to be no longer Queen of England.
Definite attempts were made by Roman Catholics abroad to
recover their lost ground in England. A wealthy English
Roman Catholic named William Allen founded a college at
Douai (it was afterwards removed to Rheims) at which young
English Roman Catholics could be trained as priests who should
work for the reconversion of their country to obedience to the
Pope. Douai priests, often called seminary priests, appeared
in this country in and after 1577 and worked secretly to revive
the authority of their Church. In 1580 a Jesuit mission, equally
secret and equally perilous, began. These missionaries made
some converts, if not many. It is impossible to say how many.
But at least they revived the waning courage of English Roman
Catholics, who were becoming fewer and fewer and were
regarding their cause as hopelessly lost. The priests worked in
secret, visiting one place after another, going from hall to farm-
house, from farmhouse to cottage, from cottage to mansion.
Wherever their adherents lived they were sheltered. Wherever
a few of the faithful could be gathered together mass was
celebrated, with little or none of the accustomed ceremonial.
They were in peril, and were occasionally caught. In 1581 the
law was made more severe. Recusancy fines were increased
to twenty pounds per month. In 1585 all Jesuit and seminary
priests were ordered to depart from the country within forty
days on pain of death. They did not go, and after this date
the result of being caught was to suffer death. In many
country houses they lay in - priest-holes," constructed in the
thickness of the walls and reached by secret stairways, whi
search parties sought them. It is impossibk t° withhold
admiration of the bravery shown by these priests m a ca
they believed to be true and right. Yet it is equally impossib
ELIZABETH'S RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT 73
to blame Elizabeth for the stern measures taken against them.
If they succeeded in their aims her throne would be lost.
To a man they regarded Mary Stuart as rightful Queen of
England. If they succeeded England would become subject to
the Pope again. It was inevitable that the hunting of popish
priests should continue till the end of the reign.
Elizabeth's religious settlement was attacked from another
side. During the Marian persecution some English Protestants
had taken refuge at Geneva and had become ardent Calvinists.
They returned to this country at the accession of Elizabeth
and formed the Puritan, or extreme Protestant, party. By
no means numerous at first, they certainly increased in numbers
during the reign. They were utterly dissatisfied with the
moderate character of the Church as settled by Elizabeth, and
aimed at bringing about further changes in the direction of
Protestantism. Much of the ceremonial that remained seemed
to them to be a relic of popery, and they wanted its abolition.
They disapproved of the wearing of the surplice by the clergy,
they objected to bowing the head, to kneeling at communion,
to the use of the ring in the marriage ceremony, to the sign of
the cross. Some of them were much more extreme in their
views than others. While most of them remained within
the Church and hoped for the changes which they thought
needful, some left it altogether and attempted to form separate
congregations. These latter were called “sectaries" or
“separatists," or, after one of their leaders, Robert Browne,
“ Brownists." With them originated the “ Independent " group
of Puritans, which became extremely powerful for a time in
the Stuart period. Others wished for the abolition of bishops
m the Church, thus making it similar to the Church of
Scotland after 1560.
Cardinal Pole died within twenty-four hours of Queen Mary,
and Elizabeth shortly after her accession filled the vacant
Archbishopric of Canterbury by appointing Matthew Parker,
who held it till his death in 1575. Inspired by the Queen he
ls J ued u m his “Advertisements," warning the Puritans
that they must conform to the rules of the Church, and, in
particular, directing clergy of Puritan views to wear surplices
while conducting Divine worship in church. From this it
may be assumed that some of them, in defiance of Church
custom, were neglecting to wear appropriate robes. Further
rouble with the Puritans was experienced a few years later.
74 THE TUDOR PERIOD
when a Cambridge Professor of Divinity, of Puritan views,
one Thomas Cartwright, was removed from his post.
Edmund Grindal was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1575
to 1583. He was more sympathetic with the Puritans than
Parker had been. In many places Puritans held religious
meetings of their own in addition to Church services. The
Queen disapproved of them and directed Grindal to suppress
them. He declined to do this and was suspended from his
archbishopric. It is probable that Elizabeth would have
removed him altogether from his post had not his death
occurred at this time.
John Whitgift succeeded Grindal and was Archbishop till
1604. He was a bitter opponent of the Puritan faction and took
strong action against those who preached and wrote against
the bishops. Pamphlets were sometimes issued anonymously,
but severe punishment was meted out to their authors if they
were found. A not uncommon form of penalty was the
striking off of the right hand— a grim expression of sixteenth-
century humour, since the loss of this member would make it
difficult for a man to repeat his offence.
The increasing persecution of the Puritans for their opposi-
tion to the bishops and the ceremonial of the Church, and or
the Papists for their disloyalty to the Queen, indicates that
Elizabeth had not fully succeeded in her purpose. She had
not secured complete national unity in religion, j Yet she had
attained a large measure of unity. It must be remembered
that the great mass of the people were neither Papist nor
Puritan, and that Englishmen as a whole had confidence m
the Queen and approved of her Church settlement. That its
success was only partial was due to causes entirely beyond h
control.
CHAPTER XV
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN THE TUDOR PERIOD
The rivalry of the Queens of England and Scotland, which
was so marked a feature of the reign of Elizabeth, cannot be
fully understood without some consideration of Scottish
history in the sixteenth century. Scotland, the northern
kingdom of Great Britain, was only half as large as England.
It was cold and bleak and barren, and supported a much smaller
population than its southern neighbour. It had from time to
time been in danger of conquest by the English, and since the
efforts of Edward I to establish himself as its King it had
been continuously hostile to England. As France also was
unfriendly towards England on account of English attempts to
obtain the French crown, Scotland and France maintained an
alliance on the basis of their common antagonism towards
England. Border fighting between English and Scots was of
frequent occurrence, and whenever England engaged in war
on the continent a Scottish invasion of the northern counties
was to be expected.
The general aim of Tudor policy was to establish more
friendly relations with Scotland. Henry VII was at first not
very successful in this respect. James IV (1488-1513) received
Perkin Warbeck, and only consented to expel him under threat
of English invasion. Some years later, however, a better
understanding prevailed, and a marriage took place in 1503
between James IV and Margaret Tudor, elder daughter of
Henry VII. As has been stated elsewhere, royal marriages in
sixteenth century were regarded as expressions of alliance,
And England and Scotland remained on good terms for the
next ten years.
In 1513, however, Henry VIII, being at war with France,
crossed with an army to Flanders and fought the Guinegatte
campaign. The Scots were thus in a position to determine
w ether they should remain faithful to their new friendship
y keeping quiet, or should follow old tradition by attacking
75
76 THE TUDOR PERIOD
England in the absence of the English King. James invaded
England, but was met at Flodden by an army under the Earl
of Surrey. The Scots experienced one of the severest defeats
ever inflicted upon them. Their King was slain, and their army
was almost totally destroyed.
The new King, James V, was a boy, and his mother, Margaret,
ruled for a time as Regent, and upheld English interests. But
before long the party among the nobles which preferred the
French alliance gained the upper hand, and as James V him-
self grew old enough to rule his country he showed a preference
for the French connection. Henry VIII did his best to bring
about friendly relations with his nephew. He tried, with-
out success, to arrange a meeting with him, and he made
efforts to persuade James to enrich himself by dissolving
Scottish monasteries. But James married Mary of Guise, a
lady of one of the most powerful families in France. Her
brother, the Duke of Guise, was a leader of the Catholic
party in France, and two other brothers were Cardinals. By
this marriage the continuance of a French and Catholic policy
in Scotland was assured. James at length made war upon
England, but the Scots were decisively defeated at Solway
Moss in 1542, and the King died shortly after, leaving his
crown to his infant daughter Mary, the famous Mary Stuart,
Queen of Scots.
Mary of Guise assumed the regency and the French alliance
continued. Yet Henry VIII did not despair of bringing about
more cordial relations. His son Edward was only a few years
older than the child-Queen Mary, and he proposed that a
marriage should be arranged between them. The idea was
little to the liking of the Regent, who, however, was afraid to
reject it forthwith. Negotiations were begun, but they broke
down, and in 1544 an English army under the Earl of Hertford
invaded Scotland and ravaged the Lowlands. It is difficult
to see how the marriage could be promoted by the plundering
of towns and the burning of villages and the massacre of
peasants, and, indeed, the Scots turned from the proposal
in anger.
Edward became King in 1547 and Hertford became Protector
and Duke of Somerset. He revived the idea of a marriage
between the King of England and the Queen of Scotland, and
for the second time invaded Scotland to forward it. He
defeated the Scots at the Battle of Pinkie, though much of the
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN TUDOR PERIOD 77
credit for the victory should go to the Earl of Warwick. But
the Scots sent their young Queen to France, and Somerset’s
plan failed. For the next fourteen years Mary Stuart was in
France under the protection of the Guises. At the age of
sixteen she married the Dauphin, who soon afterwards became
King of France as Francis II. Mary was thus, by 1559,
Queen of Scotland and France. Francis II, however, died
in 1560 and Mary at the age of eighteen was a widow.
Meanwhile, her mother ruled in Scotland. A group of
Protestants had appeared, and they had been persecuted by the
Regent and by Cardinal Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews.
Beaton was murdered as the result of a Protestant plot, and his
murderers seized the castle of St. Andrews, where they defended
themselves against the troops sent by the Regent to capture
them. This was in 1547, and one of the aims Somerset had in
mind in invading Scotland was to relieve the besieged Protes-
tants. He failed in this, and they were taken and punished.
John Knox was a Scottish Protestant who had not been
involved in Beaton's death, but who joined his murderers at
St. Andrews because, as he said, “he gloried in their godly
act." He was sent to the galleys in France, but was released
and came to England. When Mary Tudor became Queen of
England he went to Geneva for a time, but at length he
returned to Scotland to preach Protestantism, which hitherto
had made little headway. He met with much success, and was
protected by a group of Scottish Protestant nobles who called
themselves Lords of the Congregation. Some of them were
sincere Protestants, and others were willing to uphold the
Protestant cause because the Crown was opposed to it. The
outbreak of a riot at Perth after Knox had preached there led
to fighting between the Lords and the Regent's troops. The
Lords were victorious and captured Edinburgh.
Mary of Guise applied to France for help, and, as her daughter
was by this time Queen of France as well as Queen of Scot-
land, help was readily sent. The Lords would certainly be
overwhelmed upon the arrival of the French unless they, too,
could obtain outside assistance, and they applied to Elizabeth,
who had recently ascended the English throne. Elizabeth
was reluctant to intervene in Scottish religious quarrels, but
she could not refuse to support the Lords at this time. For
Mary Stuart had refused to recognise Elizabeth as Queen of
England and had put forth her own claim to the English
THE TUDOR PERIOD
78
throne, and if the French troops reached Scotland and scattered
the Lords of the Congregation they might well march into
England and attack Elizabeth. To help the Lords, therefore,
was necessary if she would consider her own safety.
French troops arrived at Leith, but an English force opposed
them immediately upon landing. About this time, however,
Mary of Guise died, and an agreement was reached between
the foreign military commanders and the Lords of the Congre-
gation. By this Treaty of Edinburgh, 1560, it was arranged
that both English and French troops should retire from
Scotland and that the Scottish religious question, out of which
all the trouble had arisen, should be settled by the Lords.
In 1561 Presbyterianism was declared to be the religion of
Scotland. English and Scots were, as a result of the change,
on friendlier terms than they had been at any time before, since
Scottish Presbyterians were bound to look upon Elizabeth as
their protector. She was, in fact, already beginning to assume
the position of champion of Protestantism in Europe.
The death of the Regent left Scotland without a ruler, and
as the Queen of Scots was a widow in France she decided to
return to her own country and undertake its government.
But she was able to achieve little. The Lords were all-
powerful. The Queen retained her own religion, but she was
expected to listen to sermons by Knox and other Presbyterian
ministers in which her conduct was openly criticised. The
roughness of life in Scotland, the poverty of the country, the
rudeness of the people, contrasted painfully with life in France.
Mary was essentially, by birth and upbringing, a French-
woman, and she soon tired of her position in Scotland. Her
thoughts turned towards England and she decided to press
her claim to the English throne.
Her English claim was based on the fact that Henry Vlll
had married .Anne Boleyn while Catherine of Aragon was still
livine One of these ladies might have been his lawful wile;
certainly, both were not. The Roman Catholic view was that
the marriage with Catherine was lawful, and that with Anne
was void. Consequently, Elizabeth, the daughter of Anne, was
not Henry’s lawful daughter. According to this view the
next heir, after the death of Mary Tudor, was Mary Stua ,
who was a granddaughter of Margaret Tudor and James I ^
and the next in succession to Mary was Henry Stuart, Lord
Darnlev, a descendant of Margaret Tudor and her second
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN TUDOR PERIOD 79
husband, the Earl of Angus. In 1565 Mary married Darnley,
and this action was regarded as evidence of her intention to
push her English claim. The marriage was a mistake, however,
for the Queen and her husband had nothing in common, and
they soon quarrelled. Mary relied for companionship upon her
secretary, David Rizzio, an Italian, of whom Darnley became
violently jealous. In 1566 Rizzio was murdered in Holy rood
Palace, almost in the Queen's presence, by a gang of ruffians
directed by Darnley, and though a reconciliation took place
between Darnley and Mary the Queen intended to avenge her
friend's death. In 1567 Darnley fell ill with smallpox and lay
in a lonely house called Kirk o' Field. One night the house
was blown up. Yet Darnley must have had notice of a plot to
kill him, for his body was discovered next day at some distance
from the house. In attempting to escape before the destruc-
tion of the house he must have met with the conspirators
and been dispatched by their swords.
The murder created a tremendous stir. Mary was, of
course, not openly implicated in it at first, since she was known
to have been in Edinburgh at the time it occurred. It was
generally believed that James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell,
was responsible for Darnley's death, and the Earl of Lennox,
Darnley's father, accused him of the murder. Bothwell was
ordered to surrender for trial at Edinburgh, but he appeared
at the head of a large body of retainers who surrounded the
court-house and forced the court to acquit him. Shortly
afterwards, Mary married Bothwell. Although, apparently,
she was violently carried off and forced into the marriage, few
men believed that the whole affair was not stage-managed.
Her enemies were delighted, for in marrying Bothwell Mary
had committed a fatal mistake. Her marriage with the man
who was believed to have murdered Darnley implicated her
in that crime. If she had been entirely innocent of Darnley’s
death she would never have married Bothwell.
The Lords of the Congregation took up arms against the
Queen, and Bothwell with Mary met them at Carberry Hill.
The Lords carried everything before them. Bothwell fled
overseas and died not long after in Denmark. But Mary was
captured and brought to Edinburgh under close guard. She
was forced to sign a document by which she resigned her
Cr °k ri r> t0 ^ er ^ ant son J ames > the offspring of her marriage
with Darnley. The Lords then consigned her to a castle on
8o
THE TUDOR PERIOD
an island in the middle of Loch Leven, there to pass the
remainder of her life.
Mary lived at Loch Leven Castle for about a year, and then
escaped. She still had adherents, and raised forces to meet
the army sent against her by the Lords, but she was defeated
at Langside. This time, however, she evaded her enemies,
and, taking a bold course, rode towards England. With her
entry into England her connection with Scotland ceased, and
her later life will be described in the next chapter.
With the fall of Mary the Lords remained all-powerful in
Scotland, and James VI was reared under tutors and guardians
appointed by them. He was brought up as a Presbyterian—
the first Stuart not of the Roman Catholic faith. The regency
was held in succession by the Earls of Moray, Mar, Lennox,
and Morton. Scotland, now definitely Presbyterian, had no
longer any reason to prefer the French to the English alliance.
James, when he grew up, took the same line. Though his
mother was a prisoner in England he was on friendly terms
with Elizabeth, and when Mary was beheaded he made no more
than formal protest. He has been severely censured for this,
and it is not easy to defend the conduct of a man who will not
act strongly on behalf of his mother. But it may be remem-
bered that at the time of Mary's death James was only twenty
years old, that he was surrounded by determined nobles who
regarded Mary as a wicked woman, and that he could not have
been ignorant of his mother's share in the death of his father.
Tames had high hopes of succession to the throne of E n g la £ d
at the death of Queen Elizabeth, and he kept in touch by
correspondence with many of the leading men of the latter
part of Elizabeth's reign. The Queen granted him a small
pension and, though during her life she was reluctant to naro
a successor, while she lay dying she named the King of bcots,
who became King of England as James I.
Tudor policy of establishing better relations betw
England and Scotland thus succeeded only during the las
Tudor reign. Earlier efforts, based on nothing more solid
than marriages and marriage proposals, broke down in the fac
oftheT ancient dislike and fear of the larger kingdom by the
smaller. It was only when the religious question ^came to
the front and both countries supported the Reformatio
(though in different degrees) against the Catholic powers
friendship was found to be possible.
CHAPTER XVI
MARY STUART IN ENGLAND
When Mary decided to cross the border and enter England
she took a bold step. She was escaping from her enemies in
Scotland by throwing herself on the mercy of her enemy in
England, a Queen whose very right to the title she had hitherto
declined to recognise. Nevertheless, from Carlisle she sent a
message to Elizabeth requesting her to grant her a safe-conduct
through England to France. Mary, as a Dowager Queen of
France, had an obvious right to live in that country, and,
indeed, the happiest years of her life had been spent there.
The problem thus presented to Elizabeth was not easy to
solve. It was, indeed, possible to send Mary under guard back
to Scotland, where the Lords would probably take strong
precautions against a second escape. To do this, however,
was not to Elizabeth's liking. To treat a rival fallen upon
misfortune in such a way would be ungenerous, and would
not enhance Elizabeth's reputation. Mary was not returned to
Scotland.
To grant the safe-conduct and permit Mary to go to France
was a course to which serious objections presented themselves.
Mary was still young and ambitious, and though she had been
thrice widowed it could not be expected that she would not
find a fourth husband. With the Guise power to support her
she would certainly scheme to obtain the English crown.
Mary in France would be a source of danger to Elizabeth.
The remaining possibility was to keep Mary a prisoner in
England. Yet this was open to objections of almost equal
weight. Elizabeth would be taking advantage of the mis-
fortune of another Queen and would have little legal right to
detain her, since Mary was not an English subject. English
Roman Catholics regarded Mary as rightful Queen, and it was
certain that from time to time they would plot to establish her
on the throne. Mary in England would be the centre of
treasonable intrigues.
Thus to each possible course objections could be raised.
8x
82
THE TUDOR PERIOD
Elizabeth decided that to keep her rival in England would be
the safer course, since a sharper eye could be kept on plots in
this country than in France. A spy service could be organised,
and the Scottish Queen might be hampered in her efforts in
various ways which would not be possible if she were in
France and at liberty. Elizabeth, however, naturally did not
care to announce that she intended to keep Mary in England
in order to watch her, and declared her readiness to permit her
to leave for France as soon as her complicity in the murder of
Lord Darnley had been disproved — a condition to which
Mary could hardly object, yet with which she would find it
difficult to comply.
A Commission, under the presidency of the Duke of Norfolk,
sat at York to investigate, nominally, the conduct of the Lords
of the Congregation; really, Mary's conduct. The Lords sent
to the Commission, as evidence of Mary’s guilt, a box of letters
said to have been discovered at Holyrood after the Battle of
Carberry Hill and the deposition of the Scottish Queen.
These letters, if genuine, would leave little doubt on the matter.
Mary's defenders replied that they were forgeries, and much
discussion has since arisen on this question. But the true
evidence of Mary's guilt does not depend upon them. If they
were genuine she was guilty; if they were forged it does not
follow that she was innocent. Mary's marriage with Bothwell
is the circumstance which points to her having been involved
in Darnley's murder. The Commission came to no definite
decision, and Mary remained in England.
Her hopes now rested on the activity of her English adherents.
The Duke of Norfolk, president of the Commission and the
only English Duke, was a Roman Catholic, and a scheme was
evolved for his marriage with Mary. He was arrested and the
plan fell through. It was probably treasonable, for it is diffi-
cult to believe that he would have had no intention of placing
his wife on the English throne. Yet it was not easy to prove
the plan to be treasonable and Norfolk, on promising to drop
the proposal, was released.
In 1569 a Roman Catholic rising occurred in the north— the
region where Papists were still numerous. The Earls of
Northumberland and Westmorland occupied Durham Castle
and Cathedral, and the Latin mass was celebrated there. But
upon the approach of royal troops they fled overseas, and the
effort collapsed.
MARY STUART IN ENGLAND 83
The excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth by the
Pope in 1570 placed English Roman Catholics in the position
of having to choose definitely between Mary and Elizabeth,
and although many remained loyal to Elizabeth many others
engaged in treasonable intrigues on behalf of her rival. A very
serious plot was formed in the year 1571. The Duke of Nor-
folk was again involved in it. At this time the Netherlands
were on the verge of revolt, and a large Spanish army under the
Duke of Alva was present to suppress possible disorder. The
plotters hoped for a sudden Spanish invasion by Alva’s army,
and the consequent deposition of Elizabeth and the elevation
of Mary to the throne. Communication between the two
Dukes was carried on through the agency of a banker named
Ridolfi, who had business affairs in both London and the
Netherlands and who, consequently, could travel frequently
between the two countries without arousing suspicion. But
spies were at work and at the right moment both Norfolk and
Ridolfi were arrested, and in due course they were put to death.
The effect of the incident was to damage Mary's cause in
England. This definite proof of the lengths to which her
adherents were prepared to go rallied Englishmen to the
support of their Queen. For many years no further effort was
made on behalf of Mary, who lived under the guardianship
of English nobles in whose charge she was placed.
In 1583 a plot to assassinate Elizabeth was arranged. From
one of the conspirators it was called Throgmorton’s plot, but
the prime movers were Jesuit priests. Discovery of the plot
was, as usual, followed by the execution of the plotters, and
the fact that the Spanish ambassador was implicated in it
brought about his dismissal from the country. In order to
protect the Queen a Bond of Association was formed. Many
thousands of Englishmen took an oath to the effect that, if
the Queen were assassinated, they would exact vengeance upon
any one who profited by her death. If, therefore, Mary came
to the English throne as the result of Elizabeth's assassination
she would begin her reign with the knowledge that a large
number of her subjects were sworn to kill her, and though
juany might fail in the attempt it was probable that, sooner or
later, one would succeed.
Yet another conspiracy to murder Elizabeth was planned in
‘ The arch-plotter was a Douai priest, Father Ballard,
although the plot is referred to as Babington’s, from Anthony
THE TUDOR PERIOD
84
Babington, who was involved in it. It met with no more
success than earlier efforts, from which it differs, however, in
that definite evidence was obtained that Mary had a guilty
knowledge of it. No such proof of Mary’s complicity in the
earlier plots had been found, but in this case it was clear that
she consented to it, and a reasonable ground was afforded for
putting her to death. Elizabeth hesitated for some time, but
at length yielded to the persuasions of her advisers, and Mary
was beheaded at Fotheringay in February, 1587.
It can hardly be doubted that if Elizabeth had wished to
destroy her rival earlier some pretext could have been found,
and it may be thought remarkable that this should not have
been done in order to stop the succession of assassination plots.
Elizabeth, however, had a definite reason for keeping Mary alive.
She was quite aware that a war with Spain was inevitable.
The religious question in Europe could not be settled without
conflict between the champions of Roman Catholicism and
of Protestantism. But she wished to postpone the fight as
long as possible, since with the passing of time England was
increasing in strength and Spanish power was being sapped
in the Netherlands and elsewhere. Every year gained was
of advantage to England. Elizabeth believed, moreover, that
Philip would not attack her while Mary lived. The Roman
Catholic view was that Mary was rightful Queen of England,
and if Philip conquered England he could hardly do otherwise
than enthrone her. But Mary was closely connected with
France, and as Queen of England she would be on good terms
with that country, with which Philip was by no means friendly,
and he was reluctant to act, even in the cause of religion, in
such a way as to strengthen one of his enemies. While Mary
lived he would not attack England. At her death the chief
objection to a war against England was removed. Elizabeth
understood these circumstances well, and realised that by
keeping Mary alive or putting her to death she could postpone
or precipitate an attack from Spain. While England was growing
in strength Mary continued to live ; when nothing more was to
be gained by waiting Mary died. Her execution occurred in
February, 1587; the Armada came in the summer of 1500.
CHAPTER XVII
MARITIME ACTIVITY IN THE TUDOR PERIOD
In the Middle Ages the English were not a seafaring race.
In those remote times when Angles, Saxons, and Jutes lived in
Germany, before their settlement in this country, they were
active as pirates in the North Sea. But in Britain they became
a race of farmers and lost their taste for maritime adventure.
This state of affairs continued throughout the Middle Ages
and, although at long intervals naval battles were fought, there
is little trace of real liking for the sea. There was not much
foreign trade, and much of such trade as existed was carried
on in foreign ships, belonging to Hanse merchants from north
Germany, to Dutch traders, to Gascon wine-merchants, and
to Venetians.
In the reign of Henry VII voyages were made from Bristol
in 1497 and 1498 by John Cabot to Newfoundland and the main-
land of North America. But Cabot was not an Englishman,
and little resulted from his travels.
English maritime activity really began in the reign of
Henry VIII. Despite many faults Henry was a great King.
He realised the political importance of the separation of this
country from the continent by the narrow seas. He under-
stood that England must be defended on the sea, and he built
ships for the Royal Navy. Monastic wealth was used for
purposes of coast defence and harbour improvement. He
established Trinity House and entrusted to that body the work
of providing lighthouses and lightships, buoys and beacons,
and the various marks which make the English coast safe for
navigation. He encouraged men to go fishing on the New-
foundland banks, and he honoured with his friendship and
patronage merchants who built ships and developed overseas
trade.
In the troubled times which followed his death a new form
of maritime activity arose. Men of the south-west built ships
85
86 THE TUDOR PERIOD
for piratical purposes. While Mary was burning Protestants
m England and Philip was burning them in Spain and the
Netherlands, men of Devon and Cornwall ventured out into
the Channel in small, well-built, well-rigged, speedy vessels
in which they attacked galleons trading between Spain and
Flanders, and they secured many a prize. Though this was
piracy, it was piracy with a religious and a national colouring.
It was Protestant and English, and the object of attack was
Catholic Spain. These Channel Rovers had to be very good
seamen, for the penalty of capture was death. They continued
their efforts throughout Elizabeth's reign. Philip complained
again and again, and Elizabeth, in the earlier years of her reign,
promised to suppress them. Proclamations were issued and
were disregarded. The Rovers knew their Queen, and had no
fear that she would stop exploits which were weakening Spain
and providing England with a body of good seamen at no
cost to herself.
The reign of Elizabeth saw a great development of English
seamanship. The nation realised that a conflict with Spain
was inevitable. For the waging of war, ships and men and
money were needed. Spain had the advantage of a continuous
supply of treasure from the mines of the New World, and the
aim of English seamen was to secure for their country a share
of the wealth of the recently discovered lands overseas. By
four different methods Englishmen tried, with more or less
success, to realise this aim.
One way of obtaining wealth was by trading. The secret
of successful trading was to find that a necessary article was
scarce and dear in one place and plentiful and cheap in another,
and to transport it in sufficient quantities from the one place
to the other. In the Spanish colonies labour was scarce. The
Spaniards themselves would not, and, in a tropical climate,
could not condescend to manual labour. They had attempted
to enslave the native Indians, who, accustomed to hunting,
had rapidly died off under conditions involving regular toil.
It occurred to John Hawkins, an English merchant, that the
Spanish labour problem might be solved by the importation
of African negroes. It was true that Spanish rules forbade
the carrying on of trade with Spanish colonies by any but the
ships of the official Colonial Company of Seville, but Hawkins
reckoned little of this prohibition. In 1562, with three ships,
he visited West Africa, obtained cargoes of negroes, and crossed
MARITIME ACTIVITY IN TUDOR PERIOD 87
the Atlantic with them. Visiting various ports, he was for-
bidden by governors and customs officials to do any trade.
But he found that the colonists were eager to buy his negroes
and that the officials had no force with which to back up their
prohibition. He sold his slaves, bought colonial produce, and
returned to England, having made substantial profits on the
round voyage. The whole adventure had taken more than
a year, and in 1564 he repeated it— this time with four ships.
He had more difficulty in obtaining his slaves and more diffi-
culty in disposing of them. Yet by threatening to use force
he was successful, and again made a profit. His third venture,
in 1567, was with five ships, and after he had disposed of his
cargo of slaves he put into the harbour of San Juan de Ulloa,
near Vera Cruz, to refit for the homeward voyage. A Spanish
fleet of war appeared outside the harbour, and Hawkins was
trapped! Philip II, much incensed at the illegal proceedings
of the Englishman, had sent out a fleet to uphold his prohibi-
tion of colonial trade with foreigners. The Spanish admiral
promised to allow Hawkins to depart, but broke his word,
for when the English ships left the harbour they were attacked,
and three were sunk. (Four Spanish ships were sunk in the
battle.) Only the ships commanded by Hawkins himself and
by his young cousin Francis Drake, who was making his first
voyage to the Spanish Main, escaped. Had the Spanish
admiral been able to foresee the future he would have done
well to concentrate his attack upon Drake’s ship and let the
rest escape! This was the end of open trading, although from
time to time bold captains continued, with varying degrees of
success, to attempt a little smuggling, with which they mixed
a little piracy.
Drake was a Devon man whose knowledge of the sea had
been gained as a Channel Rover. It seemed to him that a
better way of securing the desired end of obtaining New World
wealth was to apply Channel Rover methods to the Spanish
Main. After his first crossing of the Atlantic in the company
of Hawkins he made many voyages and distinguished himself
by vigorous and successful attacks upon Spanish ships and
settlements. England and Spain were not at war, and Drake
did not hold the Queen’s commission, so that he would certainly
have suffered as a pirate had he been captured. On one
occasion he crossed the Isthmus of Darien and saw the Pacific
Ocean. He resolved to sail upon it, and in 1577 he started
88 THE TUDOR PERIOD
on the most famous of all his voyages. It is probable that he
had no intention of sailing round the world when he set out.
There is some reason to believe that on this occasion he held
the Queen’s commission. With five ships he skirted the
South American coast. Difficulties arose, but mutineers were
hanged and storms were weathered, and Drake at last reached
the Pacific, though with only one ship, the Pelican, which he
renamed the Golden Hind. Sailing northward, he learned
that it was possible for him to overtake the treasure-ship which
bore the year’s produce of the Peruvian mines from Lima to
the Isthmus. The vessel was slow and without means of
defence, since the Spaniards never dreamed of piratical attack
in the Pacific. It fell an easy prey to Drake, and he continued
his voyage northward. He probably intended to return to
England by rounding the north of North America, then un-
mapped and uncharted. He landed at New Albion (California),
and took formal possession on behalf of Queen Elizabeth.
Again sailing northward, he found that the coast trended to
the north-west, and he abandoned his plan and decided to cross
the Pacific. This was done and the return to England was
accomplished by way of the Cape of Good Hope. In order
to avoid unpleasant Spanish attentions he made a wide detour
into the Atlantic when in the latitude of Spain. Drake’s was
the second expedition to circumnavigate the world. He arrived
home in 1580, after three years' absence, during which many .
people must have given him up as lost. The Queen showed
her appreciation of his exploit by knighting him on his own
quarter-deck, and by disregarding the Spanish demand for his
surrender as a pirate. He made several subsequent voyages
to the Spanish Main, both before and after the Armada, but
his voyage round the world will ever rank as his most notable
achievement.
A third way of trying to secure New World wealth was by
establishing settlements distinct from those of Spain. North
America was barely touched by the Spaniards, and Sir Walter
Raleigh tried to establish on its east coast a colony which he
called Virginia, in honour of the Queen. Two attempts were
made, in 1585 and 1587, and neither succeeded. The principles
of successful colonisation were not properly understood. It
was necessary for some years to elapse before a colony could
be self-supporting. While the preliminary work of clearing
land, building houses, and making roads and harbours was
Some Voyages of Famous English Seamen in Tudor Times
THE TUDOR PERIOD
being carried on little could be produced, and food and other
necessaries of life had to be supplied, while defence from hostile
natives had to be arranged. The early Virginian settlers were
starving when supplies were interrupted. Drake visited the
first settlement, and took the remnant of the colonists on
his ships. The second attempt to establish a colony in
Virginia was overwhelmed by Indian attack. An effort by
Sir Humphrey Gilbert to found a colony in Newfoundland
was equally unsuccessful, and at the death of Elizabeth no
overseas settlement had been established by Englishmen.
The remaining type of maritime enterprise was represented
by efforts to discover a new route to India. It will be
remembered that Spanish and Portuguese navigators, nearly a
century earlier, had been inspired by a desire to solve this
problem, and it was now possible to reach the East by rounding
either the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn. But the latter
route was impracticable by reason of its great length and the
former was felt to be wearisomely long. And both were under
Spanish control, for Portugal was conquered by Spain in 1580,
and from that time till the middle of the seventeenth century
Portuguese possessions in the East and on the way to the East
were under Spanish rule. English seamen in Tudor times
tried to reach the East by exploring the North-East and North-
West passages. In the reign of Queen Mary a voyage was
undertaken by Sir Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor
to reach the East by way of the north of Europe and Asia.
A glance at the map (p. 89) shows the impracticability of the
idea, but it must be remembered that it was through the efforts
of such men as Willoughby and Chancellor that the con-
struction of the map has been possible. These explorers
reached Archangel, on the White Sea. Willoughby died, but
Chancellor travelled overland to Moscow and thence to the
Caspian. As a result of this voyage a company, the Muscovy
or Russia Company, was formed to trade with Russia. I ne
North-West passage— the rounding of the north coast ot iNortn
America— was tried by Martin Frobisher, who _made three
voyages, in 1576, 1577. and 1578, and by John Davis, whos
three efforts were m the years 1585, 1586, and 1587-
did not succeed, and, indeed, many subsequent attempts in
lat I t r Sum 3 lon y “ e bt sa.d, as Elisabeth’s reign progressed
that the English were a race of farmers, unaccustomed to tn
MARITIME ACTIVITY IN TUDOR PERIOD 91
sea. A body of seamen sprang up who gained for themselves
a name for daring and enterprise which has never since been
lost. Unofficially, and without help or even encouragement
from the Government, this body of men prepared to defend
their country in the coming crisis. Their greatest exploit, the
defeat of the Armada, must be described later.
CHAPTER XVIII
ELIZABETH'S FOREIGN POLICY
When Elizabeth succeeded her sister as Queen of England
she had no friends among the powers of Europe. Her very
title to the throne was doubtful, for, according to the Pope's
pronouncement in 1534, her mother, Anne Boleyn, was not
the lawful wife of Henry VIII, and she was not his legitimate
daughter. In Roman Catholic eyes the rightful Queen of
England was Mary Stuart, already Queen of Scotland and
France. At that time, therefore, Elizabeth could count on
only the hostility of both these countries.
Philip II, King of Spain, was at war with France when
Mary Tudor died, and, in order that he might retain the
advantage of the English alliance, he offered to marry Elizabeth.
He promised that, if she married him, he would make no
peace with France which did not involve the restoration of
Calais to England, and he pointed out how much more secure
Elizabeth would be if she had his support against her formid-
able rival, Mary Stuart. The offer must have been tempting
to the Queen, for the Spanish monarchy was the greatest in
the world, and with Philip as her husband she could afford to
disregard Mary. Yet she refused the proposal. (The fact
that she was not in love with Philip nor he with her hardly
entered into the question.) The proposed marriage could not
be celebrated without the grant of a dispensation from the
Pope (for a man might not marry his dead wife's sister), and a
marriage brought about in that way might in after years be
annulled by an obliging Pope if ever Philip should have any
reason for changing his mind. Moreover, the argument put
forward by Philip did not overcome Elizabeth's reluctance to
marry him, for she saw clearly that he would have to support
her against Mary, whether she married him or not. If Mary
became Queen of England the French monarchy would be
enormously strengthened against Spain. Philip would not
wish to bring this about.
For many years during the reign of Elizabeth, France was
92
93
ELIZABETH’S FOREIGN POLICY
tom by civil wars between Catholics and Huguenots. The
Catholic faction was headed by the Guise family, of which
Mary Stuart was a member. Elizabeth kept in touch with the
Huguenots, though she gave them little actual assistance.
She was thus for many years without allies, and she made
this the leading feature of her foreign policy. France and Spain
still feared each other, and neither wished to drive Elizabeth
into alliance with the other. She, for her part, played off each
against the other. At various times negotiations were entered
into for her marriage with a French prince. At first Henry,
Duke of Anjou, was the prospective husband, and when he
became King of France as Henry III in 1574 his brother
Francis, Duke of Alen<;on-Anjou, became Elizabeth’s suitor.
But she had no intention at any time of marrying either of
them. Had she done so she would have been committed to
a French alliance, and Philip would have had no reason for
delaying an attack upon her. Yet the negotiations served the
useful purpose of postponing Spanish attack. Philip would not
make war, lest by so doing he should hasten on the marriage
and the Anglo-French alliance.
As the years went on it became ever more certain that war
between England and Spain would break out. Elizabeth was
regarded everywhere as the champion of Protestantism, and
since 1570 she had been under the papal sentence of excom-
munication and deposition. After the revolt of the Nether-
lands broke out in 1572 English help was given to the rebels.
English seamen were making bold attacks upon Spanish
shipping in the Channel and the Spanish Main and were
threatening Spanish power in many parts of the world. Philip
had set his heart on the extermination of Protestantism, and
this could not be accomplished while Elizabeth remained
Queen of England.
neither s *4 e was w ^ n g to hasten on the struggle.
Philip did not wish to conquer England while Mary Stuart
uved, smce if he did so he would be bound to establish her as
Queen of England, and this would be to the advantage of
brance and not of Spain. Further, if Mary became Queen
ot England it was quite possible that English help to the
uutch would continue. At certain times the French had sent
assistance to the Dutch rebels, and an English Queen devoted
to French and not to Spanish interests might continue such
a course.
94
THE TUDOR PERIOD
Nor was Elizabeth eager to bring on the crisis. An impartial
observer in the earlier part of her reign would not have pro-
nounced England capable of withstanding Spanish attack.
England had been weakened by the misgovernment of the reigns
of Edward VI and Mary Tudor, while Spain with her vast
empire was the greatest power in the world. Yet Spanish
difficulties increased as time went on, and English strength
increased as well. The country was more prosperous under
Elizabeth than under her predecessors. There were fewer
destitute. Trade and industry were more settled. People
were contented, and they trusted the Queen to guide the nation
through its difficulties. And while the struggle could not be
postponed for ever, it was clear to her that the longer it was
put off the greater would be her chance of victory.
Though for many years Elizabeth would not break openly
with Philip she was willing to sanction secret attacks upon his
power. Though she gave no open support to the Rovers in
the Channel, to the piratical expeditions of Drake, nor to the
volunteers who assisted the Dutch, she did nothing to hinder
any of them.
After the year 1580 there are indications of a bolder policy
on her part. She seemed less careful to avoid giving offence
to the King of Spain. She was still desirous of putting off the
fight, since every year of postponement would increase her
prospect of victory, but she was now more confident of the
outcome of it all. This change of attitude on her part dates
from the time of Drake's return from his voyage round the
world. While his fate was uncertain she was in doubt. On
his return she knighted him in recognition of his exploit. In
1585 laws were passed to expel Jesuit and other Roman Catholic
priests from the kingdom. In 1584, after the discovery of
Throgmorton’s plot, she dismissed the Spanish ambassador
in London on account of his complicity in it. In 1585, for the
first time, an English army, under a general (the Earl of
Leicester) holding the Queen's commission, crossed the North
Sea to render aid to the Dutch. It achieved little, and
Leicester’s conduct in the command was open to criticism.
But the act of sending him at all was a definite defiance to
the King of Spain. Yet Philip held back. But after Mary
Stuart's death in 1587 he hesitated no longer. .
The Armada came in the year 1588, and the story of its
defeat will be told in the following chapter. Its failure proved
95
ELIZABETH'S FOREIGN POLICY
the soundness of the Queen's policy. It showed that she had
estimated the position properly. War with Spain continued
until after her death, but England was never in real danger
after the great fleet had been shattered. Philip's hopes of
crushing Protestantism were destroyed. The Reformation
was to survive, and the Dutch resumed their desperate fight
with increased prospect of ultimate success. Elizabeth, by
defending her country from attack, had enheartened every
Protestant state in Europe, and henceforth she enjoyed an
unparalleled reputation. Secure in the loyalty and affection
of her subjects, she was regarded with admiration by the
Protestants and with hatred by the Catholics of the continent.
In 1589 Henry IV, the first of the Bourbons, became King
of France. He had for many years been a Huguenot, and
though he professed conversion to the Catholic faith he was
always well disposed to the Protestants. He brought peace to
his unhappy land by issuing the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which
afforded toleration to the Huguenots. For some years after
his accession he was at war with Spain, so that England and
France were naturally drawn together. Although he made
peace with Spain in 1598, the friendship which had existed
between France and England since his accession continued as
a definite feature of English foreign policy for a century.
CHAPTER XIX
THE ELIZABETHAN WAR WITH SPAIN
With the death of Mary Stuart Philip's hesitation came to
an end. He resolved to conquer England, and he put forward
his own descent from Edward III as a ground for claiming the
English throne. In deposing Elizabeth he would be enforcing
the papal sentence pronounced in 1570 and justifying his own
claim to be the ‘‘Most Catholic King." He would pose as
the avenger of Mary Stuart’s death. The attacks on Spanish
power by English seamen would cease. The revolt of the
Netherlands would collapse. The power of Spain would be
greater than ever. The Reformation would come to an end.
With all these aims in view Philip ordered the preparation
of a fleet, commonly known in Spain as the Invincible Armada.
In the spring and summer of 1587 the dockyards and ports of
Spain were busy with the building of ships. Sir Francis
Drake, however, visited Cadiz, and wrought such havoc amid
the ships built and building that the expedition had to be
postponed till the following year, and it actually sailed from
Lisbon in May, 1588. It was forced by heavy weather to put
into port, and it made a fresh start in July.
The ships of the Armada carried guns, but, strictly speaking,
they were not warships. They were transports, designed for
carrying troops. The plan of the expedition was that the
Armada should bear an army of nineteen thousand men from
Spain, and that it should put into port in the Netherlands and
receive on board an additional sixteen thousand men from the
armies of the Duke of Parma. The whole force of thirty-five
thousand men was to be conveyed to England and to be
employed on the work of conquest. The Span^h soldiers
were well-trained men and bore the reputation of being the
best troops in Europe. The whole expedition was under the
command of a grandee, the Duke of Medina Sidorua.
Against this force the English had a fleet and an army. The
main line of defence was at sea. The English fleet out
numbered the Spanish, for the ships of the Royal Navy were
supplemented by every merchantman and Rover ship
96
&
Wrecks
Wrecks '
Wrecks \!
(Engh'Sh Arm
v ^ fV * fcravchtu .
I Plymouth ( Calais
>■ 19 th . July, fires hips)
• Direction
I of wind ^ / O^Vx^)
1 s' s X,
— »
FerroT i
( Armada saifecT ^ — /
llth. July 1588 )
\L Lisbon
^/Armada sailed May I58i
(Drake- April l 587) \
V Cadiz
O
The Course of the Armada
98 THE TUDOR PERIOD
could be turned out. The English ships were built on better
lines than the Spanish, and though they were lower in the
water they were well manned, for by this time the English
were far better sailors than their enemies. Their gunnery, too,
was superior to that from the great Spanish galleons. The
English fleet, like the Armada, was under the command of a
great noble, Charles, Lord Howard of Effingham, but he was
supported by a group of experienced men which included
Drake and Hawkins and every other English seaman of note.
An army was concentrated at Tilbury to fight the Spanish
if they should succeed in landing. It consisted of seventy
thousand men, hastily drawn from the counties round London,
and it increased daily with the arrival of contingents from the
remoter parts of the country. These men were by no means
the equal of the Spanish in training, but it was certain that
they would offer the most desperate resistance if a land battle
became necessary.
The danger to England seemed great, and was great. Yet,
reviewing the event from this distance of time, it is impossible
to state that the Armada had a great chance of victory. At
sea, Englishmen were more than a match for their enemies,
and if the Spanish army had landed it would have been far
too small for the conquest of the country. The ceaseless
attacks of the Rovers in the Channel would have prevented
regular communication between the invading force and the
Netherlands and Spain, and in the absence of reinforcements
and supplies of food, equipment, and ammunition the Spanish
army would inevitably have been overwhelmed. To state
this is not to detract in any way from the courage of those
Englishmen who met the peril and defeated it. Yet if the
defeat of the Armada seemed marvellous its victory would
have been a miracle.
The Armada sailed slowly up the English Channel on its
way to the Netherlands. The English fleet did not bar its way,
but large numbers of small craft issued from the ports of
the south coast and attacked the enemy in the rear. Some
damage was done and the Spanish fired away much ammunition
with little result. Somewhat demoralised, they were glad to
take refuge in Calais roads. .
But they did not remain there. Fire-ships were sent in by
night on the flowing tide, and the Spanish ships hastily slipped
their cables to avoid contact. In disorder they blundered out
99
THE ELIZABETHAN WAR WITH SPAIN
of harbour and took to the open sea. The decisive battle took
place off Gravelines and the Spanish were utterly defeated,
many ships being taken and many others being grievously
battered. The only course left to the Spanish admiral was
retreat, and with a south-west wind blowing he was com-
pelled to move northwards. Round the north and west of
the British Isles the beaten fleet made its way, losing ships as
it proceeded. Only two-fifths of the ships of the Armada
reached Spain.
The result was complete and decisive. England need no
longer fear foreign conquest. Nor was there any further
possibility of Roman Catholic supremacy being restored.
The Dutch, too, might look forward with renewed hope to
the winning of their independence. Above all, it was a per-
sonal triumph for Elizabeth. She had foreseen the struggle,
she had estimated that victory was to be won only by putting
it off until England was strong enough to meet Spain on equal
terms, and she had secured this postponement. The event
proved that her calculation was correct. Henceforth not only
was she the idol of the nation but she enjoyed a great reputation
abroad.
War between England and Spain continued until the end of
Elizabeth's reign. In 1589 an attempt was made to attack
Spain by way of revenge for the Armada. Drake sailed to
Spain and burned some ships at Corunna, but an attack on
Lisbon was mismanaged and severe losses were experienced.
Two years later occurred, off the Azores, the famous fight
between the Revenge, under the command of Sir Richard
Grenville, and a Spanish fleet of fifty-three ships, and though
the Revenge was taken she sank soon after, while the Spanish
fleet suffered severe losses. In 1595 an expedition under
Drake and Hawkins sailed for the Spanish Main, but it met
with little success, and both these famous men died during
the voyage.
Philip began to fit out a new Armada in 1596, and a fleet
was sent to Cadiz to repeat Drake’s exploit of 1587. Lord
Howard and the Earl of Essex destroyed the preparations and
captured the town. One further unsuccessful attempt was
made by Spain, and in 1598 Philip died. In that year the
war which had been waged between France and Spain since
1589 came to an end, but no peace was made between England
and Spain until after Elizabeth's death.
CHAPTER XX
IRELAND DURING THE TUDOR PERIOD
The English connection with Ireland had existed for fully
three hundred years before the beginning of the Tudor period.
In the reign of the first Plantagenet King, Henry II, some
Norman adventurers had established themselves in the country,
winning territories, building castles, and ruling their lands in
feudal fashion. Henry II visited the country and was recog-
nised by Norman lord and Irish chief alike as " Lord of Ireland,"
but he and his successors showed very little interest in the
island, and even by the accession of Henry VII the power
of the English king in Ireland was little more than nominal.
Most of the people lived in tribal fashion and were loyal only
to the heads of their septs or clans. The whole country was
parcelled out among these groups. Many of the ruling families
were of pure Irish descent, and while others were Norman in
their remote origin they were by this time Irish in all other
respects. They were known as belonging to either the
Englishry or the Irishry. The families of the Englishry
nominally acknowledged English authority, though it meant
little to them; those of the Irishry did not even admit it.
The only part of the country in which royal authority existe
in more than name was the "Pale," a narrow strip of east-coast
territory stretching from Dundalk to Dublin and a little farth
south. Within the Pale the Lord Deputy ruled in the lung s
name There was even a Parliament of sorts, representing
Pale and a few towns outside it. The whole country was
backward and poor, and no progress was possible while mte
tribal warfare continued. The Pale was no bet e off f han he
rest of the country, since it was subject to ral ^
uncivilised tribes of the Irishry which lived close “ “ s ^ de £’
its inhabitants even paid these tribes ® ®' ack ^ he situatlon
price of exemption from being plundere . . The
may be summed up in the phrases in a V h * Ul English?
Pale contained the "King's Irish Friends, the bngusnry
ioo
IRELAND DURING THE TUDOR PERIOD ioi
consisted of “The King's Irish Rebels,” the Irishry of “The
King’s Irish Enemies.”
The most powerful Irish family at the accession of Henry VII
was the Fitzgeralds, descended from one of the Norman
adventurers mentioned above. There were two branches of
this family at this time. At the head of one was the Earl of
Kildare, with extensive possessions in Leinster, while the
chief of the other was the Earl of Desmond, whose lands were
in Munster. Between the two Geraldine earldoms lay the
domains of the Butlers, headed by the Earl of Ormond.
Gerald Fitzgerald, eighth Earl of Kildare, was a powerful
chieftain who accepted the office of Lord Deputy from
Henry VII. He was no more loyal after this than before,
though his quarrels with his neighbours could now be carried
on in the King’s name. He was involved in the imposture of
Lambert Simnel and, to a lesser degree, in that of Perkin
Warbeck. It was out of the question for Henry VII to punish
him, though he deprived him of the deputyship for a time.
Sir Edward Poynings went over to rule in his place and held
a Parliament at Drogheda in 1494, by which the famous
Statute of Drogheda, or Poynings’ Law, was passed. It was
enacted that:
(1) No Parliament should meet in Ireland without the
king's consent.
(2) No law should be passed by the Irish Parliament without
the king’s previous consent.
(3) Existing English law should hold good in Ireland.
In time to come, when the royal authority had been more fully
established over the country, this law was to be an effective
means of enforcing it.
Kildare was restored to the deputyship in 1496, and held it
till his death in 1513. Henry VIII appointed the ninth Earl
to succeed his father, than whom he proved to be no more
loyal. Twice he was suspended from the deputyship, and
twice restored. At length Henry’s patience was exhausted.
Kildare was summoned to London and lodged in the Tower,
where he died in 1534. The Fitzgeralds thereupon revolted,
but Sir William Skeffington crushed the outbreak and arrested
the tenth Earl and his five uncles, the brothers of the ninth
Earl. They were not equally implicated in the rebellion, but
the King's aim was, apparently, to exterminate this turbulent
102
THE TUDOR PERIOD
family, for all of them were hanged at Tyburn. The eleventh
Earl, a boy, made good his escape to France. The suppression
of the Geraldines proved that English royal authority was
becoming something more than a shadow.
Henry VIII's quarrel with the Pope led to the separation
of the Church of England from that of Rome, and this event
had its counterpart in Ireland. The payment of annates and
Peter’s Pence to the Pope was forbidden, no appeals might
be sent to the Roman court, and in due course the King of
England was declared to be Head of the Irish Church. Finally,
the Irish monasteries were dissolved. But these changes were
by no means so successful in Ireland as in England. In
England Henry’s work represented the establishment of royal
authority in place of foreign power, and was for that reason
acceptable to the nation. But in Ireland these changes in-
volved the substitution of one foreign power, and that a hated
power, for another. They were not acceptable to the Irish
people, nearly all of whom remained Papists at heart, and, as
far as they dared to show, openly. Nor could the dissolution
of the monasteries be defended as in England. Ireland was a
very backward country, and the religious houses were centres
of civilisation, of religion, and of charity. Nothing replaced
them, and their suppression was a real loss to the country.
Many years elapsed before the dissolution was complete, and
some of the remoter houses lingered on till the reign of Eliza-
beth. The lands of Irish monasteries were distributed among
Irish chieftains, many of whom were given English titles of
nobility. This policy helped to reconcile them to English
rule. In 1542 Henry emphasised the fact that his authority
was more real than that of previous kings by assuming the
title of “King of Ireland." , , .
Yet much remained to be done before the land was sub-
jugated, and the history of Ireland in the latter half of the
sixteenth century is a dreary, yet terrible, record of revolt ^and
massacre, suppression, and extermination. English policy
aimed at ultimately replacing the native Irish with Enghs
colonists. In the reign of Philip and Mary an 1 outbreak c < of the
O'Connors and the O'Mores, in the lands of Offaly and Leix
was followed by the “plantation" of these territories came
out by the Earl of Sussex. King's County and Queens
County were marked out, and Philipstown and Maryborough
were established as their chief towns. In 1579 the Earl 0
CONNAUGHT
■%
^ PLANTATION
. Fitzgerald
Smervv /ck \ 0 r
Desmond
\ OP MUNSTER. _
PLANTATION
O 'Neill L
J y™ nc Q
OF ULSTER
/ If^c/A
! T Drogh ad a
PALE
/'
/ %
\ Dublin
f&Corrnbr K i ' )
/ /CountyK FiFggg'Cg.lj
• t~n^s — \bfiera \ />£"
V V#? j )
\ * 1 “*' ) \Kddare I
> - —
jBuU.er\
Ormond
-TV l
The names of great Irish
Families are underlined
Ireland in Tudor Times
104 THE TUDOR PERIOD
Desmond revolted, and for some years the south of Ireland was
in the utmost disorder. But the Munster Geraldines were
suppressed as ruthlessly as their kinsmen of Kildare had
been half a century earlier, and by 1584 the revolt was over.
Desmond lands were forfeited, and were granted in large
estates to Englishmen. But the dispossession of the Irish
was not complete, and most of them remained as tenants of
the new English owners.
Ulster remained the least orderly part of Ireland. The
great Irish family of O'Neill held extensive lands there. In
1567-8 occurred a disturbance led by Shane O'Neill which was
less a rebellion against the English than a quarrel within the
tribe. Order was restored by Sir Henry Sidney. Thirty years
later a much more serious outbreak was led by Hugh O'Neill,
Earl of Tyrone, who may have hoped to drive the English out
of the country. He did not limit his activity to the north, but
sent a force into Munster, which drove away the English settlers
and burned their homes. The Queen sent her favourite, the
Earl of Essex, to Ireland to put down the revolt, but O’Neill
avoided a pitched battle with him. Had Essex marched into
Ulster he might have compelled the rebel chief to fight in
defence of his possessions. Essex’s ill-success was followed
by his return to England, where a quarrel with the Queen
turned his thoughts to treason, and he suffered death in the
Tower. His successor in Ireland, Charles Blount, Lord
Mountjoy, was a grim, determined soldier who stamped out
the revolt, and before Elizabeth's death Ireland was outwardly
peaceful.
Early in James I's reign Hugh revolted once more. As
will be narrated in a later chapter, the Lord Deputy, Sir
Arthur Chichester, crushed him completely. His earldom and
his lands were forfeited and the plantation of Ulster was
undertaken — the most complete and most successful of all the
Irish plantations. English and Scottish settlers were placed
on the land from which the native Irish were expelled, and
Ulster, from being the wildest, became the most peaceful and
prosperous part of the country, the least Irish in character,
and Protestant while other parts remained Catholic.
It is easy to overestimate the results of Tudor rule in
Ireland. The country was by no means so settled, so orderly,
so obedient, and so prosperous as the sister island. Yet it is
likewise easy to understate what had been done. More mterest
IRELAND DURING THE TUDOR PERIOD 105
had been shown by the Tudors in Irish affairs than by any of
their predecessors. The King of England was now King of
Ireland. The Irish Church was, like the English, under royal
control, though not, as in England, with the cordial assent of
the people of the country. But, above all, the great Irish
famili es had been subjugated. Appeased by the grant of
titles and bribed with gifts of monastic lands, they rendered
more or less willing obedience to the Crown. And those who
were unwilling to do this, the Fitzgeralds of Kildare and
Desmond and the O’Neills of Ulster, found that the arm of
the King of England was long enough and strong enough to
dispossess and destroy them.
E
• *
^ CHAPTER XXI
PARLIAMENT IN TUDOR TIMES
As far back as Anglo-Saxon and Norman times the king had
been assisted in the work of government by a council of the
great men of the kingdom, and the weaker kings found that
this council was able to limit their power. Parliament, as we
know it, came into existence in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, in the time of the first three Edwards, and in the
later Middle Ages it exercised a good deal of authority. The
king was unable to impose taxes without its permission, and as
kings were often in want of money, for wars or other purposes,
Parliament was often able to secure from them the grant of
privileges which they might otherwise have been unwilling
to concede.
Parliament consisted of King, House of Lords, and House
of Commons. The House of Lords included all the nobles of
the realm, whether dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, or
barons, together with the archbishops and bishops of the
Church, and the abbots or priors of the more important
monasteries. The House of Commons represented the people.
Every county sent two knights to it, every city two citizens,
and every borough of any importance two burgesses. It is
not to be assumed that in the election of these members every-
body had a vote. Such was certainly not the case. In the
counties only landowners voted, and in the towns only the most
important townsmen had a voice in the election. This state
of affairs did not cause any dissatisfaction. Centuries were
to pass before anybody thought of bringing forward the
democratic demand for a vote for every man. Such taxation
as was imposed on the country fell upon the landowners and
the merchants, and it was reasonable that the people who paid,
and they alone, should vote.
Parliament did not, in any sense, rule the country. Govern-
ment was the right and duty of the king. Nor had Parliament
the right to interfere with or control the king in the exercise
of this duty. Its functions were twofold. Only Parliament
could make a new law or a change in an existing law. And the
106
PARLIAMENT IN TUDOR TIMES 107
consent of Parliament was necessary to the levying of a tax.
Changes in law, however, were rarely called for. The taxation
system was not extensive, and was usually settled at the begin-
ning of each reign. There was, therefore, little need for the
regular meeting of Parliament, and, in fact, it met only occasion-
ally, when the king should think fit to summon it. Its meetings
were so rare that its members had little experience of regular
procedure, and were usually ready to assent without comment
to laws proposed by the king and to grant the taxes for which
he asked. There was, indeed, a further right which Parlia-
ment had secured in Plantagenet times. It might bring to
justice any of the king’s ministers who had exceeded the law
in the course of his rule. It might impeach the unjust minister.
An impeachment was a State trial, in which the House of Lords
judged the man accused by the House of Commons. No
impeachments were undertaken during the Tudor period, but
the right was not lost, and in Stuart times it was revived and
frequently used.
As Parliament was not often required to exercise its power
of making new laws or levying new taxes it did not meet
regularly. It assembled only when summoned by the king,
and there were from time to time long periods during which
no Parliament met. It was rarely called in the reign of
Henry VII, but Henry VIII used it more frequently. In the
first six years of his reign a Parliament met every year, and
grants of money were made for Henry’s continental wars.
With the rise of Wolsey Parliament ceased to meet, and during
the fifteen years of the Cardinal's rule it was called only once.
This was in 1523, when Wolsey demanded a grant of £800,000
for the King’s use. A much smaller sum was actually voted.
In 1529, the year of Wolsey’s fall from power, the Reformation
Parliament was summoned, and it continued to exist, meeting
from time to time, till 1536. All the important steps in the
separation of the Church of England from that of Rome were
carried through by acts of this Parliament. It is clear that it
was merely the mouthpiece of the King's will, and that it was
prepared to pass anything and everything that he suggested.
Other Parliaments met from time to time, but no opposition
to the King’s policy was raised. Parliament, indeed, on two
occasions, in 1529 and 1544, cancelled the King’s debts, and
on the second occasion ordered that any of Henry’s creditors
who had been paid since 1542 should return the money they
io8
THE TUDOR PERIOD
had received. Towards the end of Henry's reign Parliament
enacted that the King's proclamations should have the force
of law. There were certain limits to this power, but in effect
the King was given authority to make new laws merely by
proclaiming them. This power ended, however, with Henry’s
death, and was never renewed in favour of any subsequent king.
With the dissolution of the monasteries the number of
churchmen in the House of Lords was diminished, since the
abbots and priors no longer sat there. Henceforth the lay-
peers were in a substantial majority. In Mary's reign West-
minster Abbey was restored and its abbot resumed his seat
in the Lords, but with the final dissolution of this house by
Elizabeth the last mitred abbot disappeared from Parliament.
Elizabeth summoned Parliament from time to time, and on
the whole the Houses did not oppose the Queen. She avoided
making requests for money as far as she could. But Parlia-
ment was not quite so submissive as it had been under her
father. It passed without difficulty the acts necessary for her
religious settlement, and when the Pope excommunicated and
deposed her in 1570 it needed no prompting to enact, in 1571,
the penalties of high treason against any man who should call
her a heretic, a usurper, or an infidel. But it ventured at times
to question the Queen's foreign and ecclesiastical policy, and
even raised the question of her marriage and the succession to
the throne. Elizabeth sharply ordered Parliament not to dis-
cuss such matters, and they were dropped. But later in the
reign a real contest between Crown and Parliament on the matter
of monopolies was only narrowly averted. It was the royal
practice to grant to favourites a monopoly of the sale or
manufacture of some article, and such a grant was naturally
valuable to its possessor. Protests were addressed by Parlia-
ment to the Queen in 1597 and 1601, and in the latter year an
angry debate occurred on the subject. Elizabeth wisely gave
wav and promised to cancel the more burdensome of the
monopolies. Parliament gratefully acknowledged the Queen s
action by granting her a substantial sum of money.
Surprise is sometimes expressed that there should have been
so little friction between Parliament and the Tudors when such
bitter antagonism developed against the Crown in the Stuart
period. One reason for this state of affairs lies in the ja
frequency of the meeting of Parliament, to which reference
has already been made. Even in Elizabeth s reign the Houses
iog
PARLIAMENT IN TUDOR TIMES
met rarely. Elizabeth called thirteen Parliaments, but as a
rule the meetings lasted only for a few weeks. The sum total
of the periods during which Parliament was in session did not
exceed three years, and as Elizabeth reigned for forty-five
years it is evident that for most of the time she was without
a Parliament. Some care, too, was exercised in securing the
attendance of men who would support the Crown. In the
House of Lords the few descendants of the older nobility might
be critical of the royal policy, but they were outvoted by the
newer nobles, whose titles had been conferred within the Tudor
period, and by the bishops, who were appointed by Elizabeth
and were attached to her. The submissiveness of the House
of Commons was secured by the inclusion of members from a
number of towns which had not hitherto been represented
but which were now invited to send burgesses not on account
of their importance but of their loyalty.
A further reason for the absence of conflict is to be found
in the national consciousness of danger from Spain. From the
time of the Reformation it was clear to thoughtful men that
conflict between the champions of the new way of thinking
and those of the old was inevitable, and as Anglo-Spanish
enmity developed in Elizabeth's reign it was felt that a divided
nation would certainly fall before its formidable antagonist.
The nation, in fact, could not afford to quarrel with its rulers
while the -danger of foreign conquest remained. The peril
was less after 1588, and Parliament, indeed, became bolder in
the last fifteen years of Elizabeth’s reign. But the Queen’s
position was now secure. She was the idol of the people, and
any serious attempt to limit her authority or to criticise her
policy after she had led the nation to victory was out of the
question.
But the greatest reason for the absence of friction between
Crown and Parliament in the Tudor period was that neither
wished for it. In the Stuart period it was felt that the aims of
king and people were not identical, and ultimately it became
clear that they were sharply opposed. The Tudors and their
people were not opposed. The sovereigns led the people and
the people trusted their rulers. Henry VIII in his struggle
against Rome had the nation at his back; Elizabeth in her
struggle against Spain was leading her people. Crown and
Parliament in the Tudor period did not quarrel because there
was mutual trust; there was nothing to quarrel about.
THE STUART PERIOD
CHAPTER XXII
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS
By what right does a king rule a country? There are two
possible answers to this question. A king may be regarded
as an official appointed by his people to rule them, and accord-
ing to this view he differs from other officials only in rank, and,
like them, may be removed from his post if his work is not
satisfactory. The other answer to the question is that the
king is appointed by God, and rules by Divine Right. The
Stuart kings believed in this view. James I stated it again and
again, and all the kings of his line believed in it and expected
their subjects to do so.
The theory of the Divine Right of Kings asserts that in
each country God has appointed a particular form of govern-
ment, monarchy, and that it is His will that a certain person
shall be king. If this be so, the king is responsible to God
alone for the way in which he rules, and he is not responsible
to his people. They are expected to obey the king in all
circumstances. They must never disobey, never rebel, for
such action is not only a crime against the king but a sin against
God. No matter how harsh the king's rule may be, no matter
how neglectful, how tyrannical, how foolish he may be, his
subjects must bear with him. They have no right to depose
him, nor to bring him to account in any way whatever.
It is not to be assumed, however, that a king who rules
badly will go unpunished. He will be called to account by
God after this life. All men must give account to God; but,
while most men must answer for their private lives only, the
king must account for both his private life and his public rule,
and will be judged by God according to the way he has ruled
as well as the way he has lived. But the people may not take
the place of God in judging the king.
If the king rules harshly the people are to regard his tyranny
as a visitation upon them, sent by God on account of their
sins. The remedy is not rebellion, but repentance for sin,
prayer to God, and fasting.
* p
1 14 THE STUART PERIOD
Sooner or later, however, the king must die and another
must take his place. Occasionally there have been disputes
about the succession to a dead king. Such disputes have even
developed into civil war. How are people to know which of
the claimants is divinely favoured? It is certainly important
that they should know, for it is their duty to support him and to
oppose his rival. If, even only by chance or by ignorance,
people fight for the wrong claimant, they are committing the
great sin of opposing the Lord's Anointed. God must have
given the people a rule by which they may ascertain who is the
proper successor to a lawful king. That rule is hereditary
succession — the father to be succeeded by his eldest son, or,
in the absence of children, by his nearest relative. Whenever,
therefore, any doubt arises as to succession, it is to be settled
by referring to a genealogical table.
But the rightful claimant does not always win. His opponent
may seize the throne, may rule for a number of years, may be
succeeded by generations of his descendants. Such rulers
have no Divine Right, however. A usurping line of kings
can have no Divine Right, even though it rule for a thousand
years. Divine Right remains with the rightful line, no matter
how long since it held the throne, or how poor and obscure it
may have become.
/ Divine Right, however, is something more than a privilege
conferred upon a king. He is responsible to God for the way
he exercises his power, and it is his duty to exercise it. Though
he has a Divine Right to rule, he has no Divine Right to give
away his power of ruling. He receives from his father a
certain amount of power, and it is his duty to hand that power,
undiminished, to his son. A king who believes in Divine
Right may not make concessions to his subjects. If in answer
to their petition he renounces any of his power he is failing
in the trust reposed in him by God. If God had intended
a particular power to be exercised by someone other than the
king he would have arranged accordingly, and the king has no
right to give away powers bestowed upon him by God.
§ Such, then, is the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.
' Stuart kings are often criticised for being obstinate. Their
reluctance to give way to parliamentary claims is regarded as
unreasonable. But a high-minded and religious king could
not give way. The more fully he believed in his position, and
the more truly devout he was, the more certainly would he do
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS 115
his duty by holding on to his powers. Thus it appeared that
the most religious man made the most obstinate of kings— the
best man made the worst king. U
Such a theory was, no doubt, very satisfactory from the
royal point of view. It safeguarded the king from rebellion,
it preserved him froth losing his throne, it left him an absolute
monarch. 'But it was necessary to get the nation, or at least a
large part of it, to believe in it. 1
The Church of England, of which the Crown was now the
head, taught Divine Right as part of its doctrine. We need
not think that the clergy were insincere in this. When James I
became King, the fact that he strongly supported the Church
against both Puritans and Papists might well lead them to
regard him as a King sent from God, and they were ready to
take the view that he was King by Divine Right. This was
preached in church pulpits throughout the country. At a time
when neither newspapers nor public meetings existed to inform
and enlighten the people, the preaching of the clergy was
the only way of influencing them. Many people accepted the
doctrine of Divine Right, and in the dark days to come ranged
themselves on the King’s side because they thought it was their
duty to do so. It may be noticed that one of the prayers for
the King in the Book of Common Prayer (which was revised
in 1604 and in 1662) points clearly to the view then held. The
prayer asks, 44 . . . that he (knowing whose minister he is) may,
above all things, seek thy honour and glory: and that we,
and all his subjects (duly considering whose authority he hath)
may faithfully serve, honour, and humbly obey him "
The phrases enclosed within brackets indicate belief in the
divinely-appointed character of the King’s position.
f Divine Right was not invented by James I, nor was he the
first to claim it. Some hundreds of years earlier, the Holy
Roman Emperors had claimed to be “Lords of the World.’’
But the Popes also claimed to be 44 Lords of the World,” and in
support of this contention they asserted that they were God’s
representatives upon earth, since they were the successors of
St. Peter, who, they said, was appointed by Christ himself
to the headship of the Church. / The only possible answer
which could be made by the Emperors was that they, too, were
divinely appointed, and those who supported them against
the Popes quoted various texts of scripture to uphold the claim.
In course of time the Divine Right claimed by the Holy Roman
n6 THE STUART PERIOD
Emperors was claimed also by kings. In some continental
countries it was regarded as the true basis of kingship until
quite recent times. In England only the Stuart kings talked
about it. The Tudors may have believed in it, but they did
not make any formal claim to it. They acted as though they
possessed it. Perhaps it would have been better for the
Stuarts if they had done likewise, for when a claim is acted upon
without being talked about too much people may take it for
granted. But the formal statement of the claim may lead some
people to question it, and the Stuart kings found this to be so
to their cost. /
CHAPTER XXIII
RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN THE REIGN OF JAMES I
When James I became King of England he found that three
religious parties existed among the people of this country.
Queen Elizabeth had tried to settle the religious question of
her day by making the Church of England wide enough to
include men of various religious opinions. Its doctrines were
stated in such a way that Catholics and Protestants alike might
think that it supported their views. Elizabeth hoped that all
her people would conform to the Church, and many, perhaps
most, of them did so, but groups of extreme Protestants and
extreme Catholics remained outside. Those who refused to
attend church were fined for their recusancy. In order to
avoid payment of the fine, some Papists and many Puritans
attended church. Others preferred paying the fine.
The religious parties at the accession of James were:
(а) The Church, which included the great mass of the
people, who thought it represented a reasonable settlement of
the religious questions of the time.
(б) The Puritans, who wished to see the Church become
much more Protestant than it already was. Many of them
remained in the Church, but others were outside it, forming
separate congregations. The latter were liable to be punished,
but not the former.
(c) The Roman Catholics, most of whom persisted in non-
attendance at church, and were fined accordingly.
It is curious that both the extreme groups hoped for better
treatment from James than they had received from Elizabeth.
The new King had been brought up as a Presbyterian in Scot-
land, and the Puritans might well feel that they would be better
off when Elizabeth died and the land passed under the rule of
a Puritan King. But the Papists expected James to remember
that they had suffered under Elizabeth mainly because they
had plotted on behalf of his mother, Mary Stuart. Respect
for his mother's memory would, they felt, induce the King
ii 7
n8 THE STUART PERIOD
to treat her friends and supporters with indulgence. The
hopes of both these parties were doomed to disappointment.
James had, it is true, been brought up as a Presbyterian,
but he had no liking for the system which existed in Scodand.
In the Presbyterian Church of that country the clergy exercised
much authority, and the King was of no more importance than
the humblest of his subjects. The Scottish ministers rebuked
him publicly for his faults, one of them even describing him
to his face as “God's silly vassal." While he was King of
Scotland only, he had to put up with such things, but when
he became King of England he found that he was at the head
of the Church of England, whose bishops and clergy treated
him with deep respect. It is not remarkable that he preferred
the English to the Scottish system, and determined not to
help the Puritans establish Presbyterianism in England. Nor
was he more inclined to look kindly upon the Roman Catholics.
Any increase in the numbers or influence of the Pope's followers
would tend to reduce his power as Head of the Church, which
he was determined to maintain.
English Puritans regarded the Reformation in England as
only half completed. The Church was no longer under the
Pope, but there had been little change in its doctrines since
the Middle Ages, it still retained some medieval ceremonial,
and it was still episcopal, that is, its clergy were of three ranks,
bishops, priests, and deacons. Puritans wanted change in all
these respects. They wanted the doctrines of the Church to
be those of the Genevan reformer, Calvin. They wanted
many points of ceremonial to be abolished. Bowing at the
name of Jesus, making the sign of the cross, kneeling to receive
communion, using a ring in the marriage service, and many
other things, were distasteful to them. They wished to see
the abolition of all robes for the clergy. And many of them
wanted the difference of rank among the clergy to be ended.
All the clergy would be of one grade if the office of bishop were
abolished. (The rank of deacon could easily be dropped.)
By the abolition of bishops the Church would become
Presbyterian, as was that of Scotland, where there were no
bishops and the clergy were of one grade only.
At this time another party was rising in the Church, known
as the Arminians. It included men who were Catholic in
belief, but who had no wish to see papal power restored. They
were definitely opposed to the Puritans, and were averse from
RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN REIGN OF JAMES I 119
any further changes in the direction of Protestantism. They
wanted medieval ceremonies to be retained, and, if they had
been dropped, to be restored. They wished the vestments
used in the Middle Ages to remain in use. And they held
that the Church would cease to be a church at all if bishops
were abolished.
While James was on his way from Edinburgh to London he
was met by a group of clergy who presented to him a petition,
said to have been signed by a thousand Puritan ministers of
the Church, which asked him to sanction a number of changes.
He declined to answer this “Millenary Petition” forthwith,
but he promised to call a conference to consider the Puritan
requests. This conference met at Hampton Court Palace in
1604. It included a number of bishops and other highly-
placed clergy, and with them four of the Puritans. The King
was present at the debates and soon showed that his sympathies
were not with the Puritans. Nearly everything they asked
was refused, and the Church continued in the way marked out
by Elizabeth. The Conference did one other very important
thing. It arranged for a new translation of the Bible to be made.
The work was entrusted to a number of learned men in the
Church, and seven years passed before it was completed.
But it was done so well that the Bible, as then translated, has
been in use in this country ever since.
(The Puritans were disappointed. Some of them felt that
England was no longer a place for them, and they decided
to leave it. A few went to Holland, and lived among the
Dutch, who also were Puritan, for some years. But in 1620
they, with some other English Puritans who embarked at
Southampton, sailed in a ship called the Mayflower across the
Atlantic, and formed a settlement at Plymouth, on the North
American coast. Here they were free to worship God in their
own way. It should not be thought, however, that these
“ Pilgrim Fathers ” in their new home permitted other people
to worship in any but the Puritan way. As other settlers
arrived, in course of time, they were expected to be Puritans,
and those who would not were persecuted. The Puritans, in
short, were no more tolerant than the Church they had left.
It should be recognised that, three centuries ago, toleration
was hardly thought of. Nearly all religious bodies persecuted,
if they could, people who disagreed with them, and the Church
of England was quite exceptional in the wideness of the
120
THE STUART PERIOD
toleration it permitted within its ranks, and in the moderation
of its persecution of those outside.)
Many of the Roman Catholics in England, as stated above,
had hoped for freedom from persecution and for permission to
worship in peace when James I became King. They thought
that by showing their loyalty to James they might induce him
to relax the laws against them. But the Jesuit priests and their
followers had no such hopes. They thought that the only
way to obtain their ends was to have a Roman Catholic
sovereign, and this could only be by foreign help. Treason
against the King and Spanish invasion of the country were
to be their roads to religious freedom.
For a short time it seemed that the Jesuits were wrong,
and that James might allow the laws against Papists to fall
into disuse. But when it was realised that the laws were not
being enforced many people who had not hitherto been looked
upon as Papists declared themselves to be such, so that the
number of known recusants increased considerably. The
King took alarm and ordered the enforcement of the laws.
The persecution of Roman Catholic priests and the fining of
recusants began again. This gave to the followers of the
Jesuit party their chance.
The leader of the plot which followed was Robert Catesby,
and with him were Thomas Percy, Thomas Winter, John
Wright, and Guy Fawkes. Their plan was to store gunpowder
in a cellar under the House of Lords and, when King, Lords,
and Commons were assembled together in that chamber for
the opening of Parliament, to blow them up. This done, a
Catholic rising was inevitable. People would turn in horror
against all Catholics, and all, whether they approved the deed
or not, would have to join together in self-defence. In the
turmoil the conspirators hoped to seize Princess Elizabeth,
James's daughter. She was a child, who might be made
Queen and be brought up as a Catholic. To carry out this
scheme the plotters had to admit others to their councils.
Through one of these, Francis Tresham, the plot was revealed
in time. Fawkes was arrested. Catesby and the others fled
from London to Holbeach House in Staffordshire. They
were pursued, their refuge was besieged, and they fell. Fawkes
was put to death, as was a Jesuit priest named Henry Garnett.
He was not a plotter, but he had heard, in confession, of the
plot. A Catholic priest does not reveal what he is told in
RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN REIGN OF JAMES I 121
the confessional, but, for not revealing this, Garnett died. He
was long regarded by his fellow-Papists as a martyr for his
faith. .
The plot failed, but its effects were lasting. Most English
people were overwhelmed with horror, and turned with hatred
and disgust from men who could plan murder on so large a
scale. Hitherto, while it had been against the law to be Roman
Catholic, people had not thought much the worse of their
Roman Catholic neighbours. But now the latter formed
almost a race apart. They were suspected of any and every
sort of crime. Nothing was too bad to be believed of them.
Before the Gunpowder Plot they were offenders, indeed, but
were often respected; afterwards, they were the outcasts of
English social and political life.
John Whitgift, who was Archbishop of Canterbury for the
last twenty years of Elizabeth’s reign, and who was a thorn in
the side of the Puritans, died in 1604. He was succeeded by
Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, who had been foremost
in defence of the Church at the Hampton Court Conference.
Bancroft continued his predecessor’s energetic measures against
the Puritans, many of whom he expelled from their livings,
but after his death in 1610 the next Archbishop, George Abbot,
was inclined to Puritan views. Abbot’s influence, however,
was never great, and as the years went on the court relied
more and more, in ecclesiastical matters, upon the advice
of the Arminian bishops, William Laud, of St. David's, and
Lancelot Andrewes, of Winchester.
CHAPTER XXIV
CROWN AND PARLIAMENT IN THE STUART PERIOD
The history of England in Stuart times is the story of a struggle
between the Kings and the Parliaments of the period. In the
middle of the century this struggle developed into open warfare,
and a king was beheaded, but the contest had begun many years
before the actual outbreak of war, and it was not ended when
Charles I was executed. There were many points upon which
King and Parliament quarrelled, but the real cause of the
struggle is not to be found merely by considering these points.
It was a struggle for supremacy* /
It cannot be doubted that before the Stuarts came to the
throne it was the king or queen who was supreme in the state.
Before James I became King it was Elizabeth, and not a Parlia-
ment, who ruled the country, who settled its religion, who
imprisoned her rival and cousin Mary Stuart, who kept Spain
at bay. Earlier in the Tudor period it was Henry VIII who
broke with the Pope, and who dissolved the monasteries,
although these events seemed to be the work of Parliament.
It was King Henry VII who destroyed the power of the barons.
And the farther we go back in English history the more
certainly we find that the king, and not the Parliament, ruled
the country. It is n ot surpr i sing^ t he n, that James I, when he
became King, expected to rule the country. It was, he thought,
his duty and his right to do so, as his predecessors had done, f
Parliament, three centuries ago, had no share in the ruling
of the country. And, indeed, at that time Parliament could
have no share in the work of government, for the very simple
reason that it was only rarely in existence. At the present
time people are accustomed to the continuous existence o
Parliament. It meets for several months in every year, and
although there are holiday seasons for members of Parliament
as for other people, yet the Houses can always be called togethe
at very short notice if any good reason should arise for summ
ing them. And when Parliament is dissolved a new House o
122
CROWN AND PARLIAMENT IN STUART PERIOD 123
Commons is elected within a week or two, and a new Parlia-
ment meets. It must not, however, be thought that this
practice prevailed at the time which is being considered.
Parliament met only occasionally, when specially summoned
by the sovereign, and its meeting was usually short. There
were long periods during which it was not in existence. Queen
Elizabeth during her reign of forty-five years called thirteen
Parliaments, but very few of them lasted for more than a
few weeks, and the v/hole duration of her thirteen Parliaments
amounted to no more than about three years. During periods
which totalled no less than forty-two years there was no
Parliament in existence. James I called four Parliaments
during his reign, but their total duration was no more than
three years, so that many years must have passed without a
parliamentary meeting. There was, indeed, no legal need for
a king to summon a Parliament at all, and if he neglected to
do so for the whole of his reign he was breaking no law.
Yet there were certain things which the King could not do
by himself — things which only Parliament could do. The King
alone could not make a new law nor alter an existing law. He
could not levy a tax nor increase an existing tax. Parliament
alone could make new laws and levy new taxes.
To those who take an interest in present-day affairs this may
seem to afford quite sufficient reason for Parliament meeting
with regularity then, as it does now. Much parliamentary
time at the present day is taken up with the consideration of
taxation and of various matters connected with the raising
and spending of the national revenue. And Parliament always
seems to be busy with the passing of new laws. As a rule,
over one hundred new Acts of Parliament are passed every
year, though they are not all of equal importance.
But three centuries ago the passing of a new law was a
much rarer event. The general mass of law was regarded as
fixed — not unchangeable, indeed, but only to be altered for
very good cause. Changes in the law were not readily made,
and were in fact rare. And new taxes were rarer than new laws.
Accustomed as the modern man is to taxation of all kinds, it
is hard for him to understand that the England of early Stuart
times was almost an untaxed country.
The Government of the country did not attempt to do so
much as it does to-day. There were no social services to be
paid for no public education, no public health service, no
124
THE STUART PERIOD
old-age pensions. There were no great government depart-
ments, each spending large sums of the nation's money.
There was no efficient police force. There was no standing
army and only a very small navy. There were not, in fact,
so many objects on which the Government could spend money
as there are to-day. The chief thing which was expected of
the Government was that it should provide for the defence of
the country, and it need not do that by maintaining in peace-
time a large and expensive army and navy. If war broke out,
men were called from their ordinary work to fight, and merchant
ships were drafted into the navy. But in time of peace army
and navy were almost non-existent.
Now the Government of the country was, as has been stated,
in the hands of the King. And it was a constitutional principle
that “the King should live of his own." This meant that he
should support himself, maintain his palaces, his staff of ser-
vants, and his personal guards, and in addition pay for the
Government of the country, out of his royal income. He was
not entitled, in the ordinary course of things, to expect other
people to contribute to his treasure-chest. Englishmen have
shown, again and again, that they will stand almost any form
of oppression without revolt more readily than they will permit
a king to tax them. The most serious revolt that Henry VII
had to face was due to his attempt to levy a tax. And one of
the causes of the revolt of 1381 was the levying of a tax.
The King's income was obtained from several sources, of
which three were much more important than the others. The
first was the income obtained from the Crown lands. Ever
since the Norman Conquest the Kings of England had been
very large landowners. William I gave much land to his
followers, but he kept much for himself. Other kings added
to the Crown lands. A few kings diminished their extent by
living away estates to their favourites, but the total acreage or
these lands in the time of James I was very great. Crown
lands were to be found in all parts of the country. In some
cases royal lands were farmed by the King himself, who
entrusted the management of such estates to bailiffs, ine
produce was sold in neighbouring markets, and the prohts
went to the King. But most of the Crown lands were leased
to tenants who paid a rent to the Kmg. He thus gained a very
large income from his lands, either by the rents of the leased
lands or by the sale of the produce of the farmed lands.
CROWN AND PARLIAMENT IN STUART PERIOD 125
The King was the feudal overlord of all other land in the
country, and landowners were liable to make payments of
money to the King in certain circumstances. Further, if a
landowner died before his son or daughter had grown up
the King became the guardian of the child, and managed the
estate until its owner came of age. For doing this he was
entitled to keep the income of the estate, after allowing for the
needs of the child-owner. And as the child grew up the King’s
consent was necessary for his or her marriage, and might be
given only if the suitor was prepared to pay the King hand-
somely for it. There were thousands of landowners in the
kingdom, and at any given time some of the landed estates
would certainly belong to children. The King might depend,
therefore, upon a substantial and regular income from this
source.
A third source of royal income was to be found in a system
of import duties known as tunnage and poundage — an im-
position on every tun of wine and every pound of dry goods
brought into the country. This was indirect taxation, and
could be levied only by authority of Parliament. But for more
than two centuries Parliament had at the beginning of each
reign authorised the King or Queen to levy tunnage and pound-
age during his or her lifetime, and the first Parliament of
James I continued the custom.
The King obtained further sums of money from time to
time by such means as selling charters and granting monopolies,
and fines levied in the courts were given to him.
From these sources the royal income was made up, and it
was supposed to be sufficient for the ordinary government of
the country. If, however, some unusual circumstance should
arise which involved expenditure, such, for example, as a war,
the King could hardly be expected to pay for it out of his
ordinary income. In that case his proper course of action was
to summon a Parliament and ask it for money. Parliament
was expected to levy a tax and grant the proceeds to the King.
It will be seen from what has been written that at this period
there was no need for a regular meeting of Parliament. A
new King would summon a Parliament in the first few months
of his reign in order that it might make him the usual grant of
tunnage and poundage for life. Afterwards, it would be called
only if some special circumstance arose which called for the
passing of a law or the provision of money. Should such a
126
THE STUART PERIOD
matter arise, the King, through his ministers, would recommend
the law or suggest the amount of the grant. Parliament was
by no means compelled to act upon these recommendations,
but it was very likely to do so. It was not expected to oppose
the King, but to support him loyally for the honour of his
throne and the good of the kingdom, and if it did not always
act as his ministers suggested it was expected to produce some
other means of attaining the end for which it had been called.
The discovery of the New World at the end of the fifteenth
century was followed by its colonisation by Spaniards, who
caused gold and silver mines to be worked in Mexico and Peru.
Every year a treasure fleet sailed from the New World to Spain,
bearing the year's produce of the mines. This meant that the
amount of money in circulation in Spain, and, indeed, in
the whole of western Europe, steadily increased year by year.
As a result, money was not worth so much as was formerly
the case, and the prices of most things rose. This rise in prices
was not very rapid, but it was very certain. It was going on
throughout the Tudor and Stuart periods, and it was felt as
much in England as elsewhere. Everybody felt it, though
very few people knew the cause of the rise. The Kings tell
it as much as anybody. ! They found that the expenses of
government were constantly increasing, but that their roya
revenue did not increase, or that, if it did, it increased much
more slowly than their expenditure. They found mcreasi g
difficulty in making ends meet, and were constantly “debt.
Tames I and Charles I were in their own time regarded by
som^peopleas^ extravagant. It was difficult tonndersund
why they could not make their income pay for “
of government if earlier kings had done sm The charg^ of
ffisfri, jsssiffii » •* - *
early Stuarts. This was to call a Parliament and ask tor
money. But such a request was likely 'to .be «sen *
unusual to ask Parliament for money {or^cord^yjn^ ^
of government, and members o ar . k h countr y
was a no°t U be r in y g ruled we^handtheywo^
should have a share m ruling it. At the least y i s
the blame on some unpopular minister of the King and try
CROWN AND PARLIAMENT IN STUART PERIOD 127
get him removed. A party came into existence in Parliament
which was opposed to the court, and its immediate aim was
to compel the King to choose ministers of whom it approved,
and to dismiss those whom it disliked. Before long it desired
to control the whole government of the country and to compel
the King to rule in accordance with its wishes. But, before
there was any hope of these aims being carried into effect,
Parliament must secure the right to meet regularly. It, how-
ever, the King was compelled to apply to them for money from
time to time, they could lay down conditions when they granted
it, and sooner or later their aims would be fulfilled.
CHAPTER XXV
THE PARLIAMENTS OF JAMES I
The first faint traces of the struggle between Crown and
Parliament which was referred to in the last chapter are to be
found in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. But they are no more
than faint traces, and are sometimes altogether overlooked.
The time was not yet ripe for the contest. The Queen
practised rigid economy and rarely had to ask Parliament for
money. She had no great need to call the Houses together
frequently. And, when Parliament met, it had little desire to
oppose the Queen. During the first thirty years of her reign
the nation was in great danger from Spain, and the people,
through their representatives, were bound to support the
Queen in preparing to repel the threatened attack. To quarrel
with her at such a time would be fatal to English prospects
of success when the Armada came. The cloud lifted in 1588,
and Englishmen could breathe freely and sleep soundly at
night. And from this time the fear of invasion no longer
deterred them from attempting to reduce the power of the
Crown. But Elizabeth was now the nation's idol, and very
few thought about attacking the power of the monarchy while
she lived. She had used her power with success, and for the
nation's good, and the people were prepared to trust and
support her, rather than oppose her, till her death.
With the accession of James I a more definite feeling ot
opposition to the Crown is to be noticed. His P^^uts
began to aim at sharing in the work of government, and befo
the end of the reign they attempted, with success, the rem
of unpopular ministers. James called his first
1604, and it followed what had been the custom fo more = than
two centuries by granting him tunnage and poundage for fit .
Meeting again in 1606, it passed certain severe laws iag»g
Roman Catholics, the natural sequel to the Gunpowder Plot
of the previous year. But by 1607 differences a PP * .
The King, despite the unfavourable opinions of him held y
128
129
THE PARLIAMENTS OF JAMES I
many people of his own and later times, was by no means a
fool. He was King of Scotland as well as King of England,
and he thought it would be to the advantage of both countries
if they were united into one kingdom. He realised that a
condition of permanent friendship and unity was to be preferred
to a state of chronic antagonism. As a step towards this
desirable end he had already assumed the title of King of Great
Britain. Neither Englishmen nor Scots, however, were eager
for the proposed union. But the King persevered, and made
certain proposals of union which he placed before Parliament,
hoping, no doubt, that it would adopt his suggestions and
pass them into law. It rejected them. That the King was
wiser than his people in this matter can hardly be doubted.
A century later a union between England and Scotland was
effected and, though even then many people on both sides of
the border were opposed to it, its advantages are now apparent
to everybody. James was, in short, ahead of his people.
More serious matters of dispute soon arose. In 1607 the
King issued an order increasing the duty to be paid on imported
currants, and a merchant named John Bate refused to pay the
amount of the increase, on the ground that it had not been
sanctioned by Parliament. According to the view that would
be held at the present day Bate was right, for an import duty
is now regarded as a tax, and only Parliament has the right to
impose or alter a tax. Then, however, the matter was not
so clear. Parliamentary control existed, indeed, over direct
taxation, but it was not certain that it existed equally over
indirect taxation.* One of the duties of the King as ruler of the
country was to regulate trade. At present we are inclined to
measure the prosperity of the country by the amount of its
trade. An increase in trade is regarded as an indication of
growing prosperity. But in the seventeenth century it was
often thought desirable to limit the amount of a particular kind
of trade, and this could be done by increasing the import duty
on the article in question. *And as the King regulated trade,
he was entitled to increase or reduce duties according as he
desired to reduce or increase the volume of trade in particular
articles.
Import duties, however, served another purpose. They
provided the King with a certain amount of revenue, which was
likely to be increased if the rate of duty was increased. From
this pomt of view the duty was a tax, and it was contended that
THE STUART PERIOD
130
the increase required the assent of Parliament. The question
to be considered, therefore, when an increase was ordered in
an import duty, was whether the purpose of the increase was
to regulate trade or to provide the King with more money.
If it was the former, the King might act on his own authority;
if the latter, parliamentary consent was necessary. Bate's
case was brought before the Court of Exchequer and he was
ordered to pay. It was a complete victory for the King, who
followed it up by issuing a new Book of Rates, which made
extensive changes in the existing schedule of duties. Parlia-
ment, however, did not accept this without protest, and in
1610 complained about the ** New Impositions." But the King,
after the decision in Bate's case, was legally in the right, and
he was not likely to change his policy on account of any protest
that Parliament might make.
Before the first Parliament was dissolved a proposal came
before it for abolishing the feudal payments to which the King
was entitled. The suggestion was that the King should give up
these payments, which were irregular and uncertain in amount,
and receive in their place a fixed sum of £200,000 per annum.
These payments were made by landowners, and as every
member of both Houses of Parliament owned land it was to
be expected that the proposal would be received favourably
by them. Haggling arose, however, over details. The King
wanted a little more and Parliament wanted to give a little less.
Parliament was dissolved in February, 1611, without any agree-
ment having been reached on the subject of the Great Contract.
This Parliament had lasted for seven years, although, ot
course, it had not met regularly during that period. The King
was in no hurry to call another Parliament, and preferred o
meet his financial difficulties by .borrowing money and by
creating a new title, that of baronet, which he was willing to
confer upon anybody who gave or lent him £ io oo. bu
devices as these helped him only for a time. His difficult 1
increased, and he began to consider the calling of another
Some of his courtiers advised him to do this. They
tended that it was by no means certain that a new Parhamem
would be as much opposed to the Crown as its predecessor had
been. If the King would address it politely, listen to its ico
plaints, and attend to the more urgent of them, these courtiers
would undertake to influence Parliament to make a gra
THE PARLIAMENTS OF JAMES I
131
money to the King. The Parliament was called but un-
fortunately for the King, news of this “ undertaking leaked out.
The Parliament proved to be definitely opposed to the court,
and its members were angry at the very idea of being influenced
by the “undertakers." Two months after its meeting it was
dissolved. It had neither passed an act nor made a grant ot
money. From the fact that it had produced nothing it was
called the “Addled Parliament."
Seven years elapsed before another Parliament met, in 1021.
In this, the third Parliament of the reign, the Commons revived
the practice of “impeachment," which had been used in the
Middle Ages, but not in the Tudor period. An impeachment
was a state trial, in which the accused was usually of high rank,
perhaps so powerful that ordinary courts were afraid to try him.
The House of Commons was the accuser, and the House of
Lords judged the case. Impeachment was thus a form of trial
particularly suitable for the King's ministers if any ground of
complaint could be found against them. Several men who
held monopolies were impeached at this time, but the really
important trial was that of Bacon, Lord Chancellor. The
Lord Chancellor was one of the King’s ministers, and he was
also a judge. Bacon was accused of accepting bribes, a most
serious charge against any judge, and especially against the
highest in rank of all the judges. Bacon admitted that he had
received presents from people who had had cases in his court,
but he declared that the acceptance of such gifts had not
influenced his decisions. He was found guilty and was
sentenced to imprisonment and fine, and was declared to be
incapable of holding any office in future. The King remitted
the fine and released Bacon from prison, but the great lawyer's
career was over. The real importance of the impeachment
is that the Commons had succeeded in their effort to remove
one of the King’s ministers. They had arranged their attack
cleverly, for they had chosen to bring against Bacon a charge
of so disgraceful a nature that the King could not interfere to
save his minister.
The same Parliament met again in the following year.
There seemed to be a prospect at this time that the Prince of
Wales would marry a princess who was Spanish and Catholic.
The proposed marriage was unpopular, and many people
wanted a war with Spain on behalf of the Elector Palatine, a
Protestant prince who was in exile from his dominions. The
132
THE STUART PERIOD
House of Commons sent a petition to the King, praying him to
marry the Prince to a Protestant princess. The King replied that
they had no right to meddle in such matters, which, he said,
were too high for them. The Commons retorted that they
were entitled to discuss all State affairs. To this the King
replied by sending for the Journal of the House of Commons,
a big book which contained a record of its daily proceedings,
and from it he, with his own hand, tore the page containing the
offending claim. Parliament was of course dissolved.
The fourth and last Parliament of the reign met in 1624.
It passed a law declaring monopolies to be illegal. They had
been granted by the King, who was able to supplement his
income with the money he received from the people to whom
they were granted. These persons paid him a lump sum for
the privilege, and, in many cases, a royalty on each article
made or sold. This new law, therefore, had an effect on the
King's income. But Parliament was so little accustomed to
making laws that its members were not even able to draw up
the wording of a law in a satisfactory way, and Charles I found
a way of granting monopolies without actually breaking the
Another of the King's ministers was impeached by this
Parliament. The Earl of Middlesex, Lord High Treasurer,
was charged with embezzlement of some of the money entrusts
to his care, and was found guilty. The real reason for t e
Commons' dislike of Middlesex was his opposition to the
expected war with Spain. It will be noticed, however^ that
they again succeeded in making an accusation so discreditable
to the minister attacked that the King could not intervene
Sa Whlf had Parliament achieved during the reign ? 'ft had
asserted, with success, its right to impeach the King s mup'p.
and it had exercised this right on two occasions It had
protested against the New Impositions, with no success, indeed,
at the time, but the matter had not been forgotten. It
passed a law against monopolies. It had asserted its rig
discuss all State affairs, though the King had sttongly d p t
.Up daim But it had not secured the right of meeting r g y
it had not claimed such a right, and perhaps ^rnembem
had not yet clearly seen the importance of this pomt. u
this was secured other privileges were vaiueless, for th K^g
could always win in any disagreement with his Parhamen y
PARLIAMENTS
133
dissolving that body. While he could do this, Parliament
could exercise no effective control over the Crown
The struggle between Crown and Parliament had begun.
It was not yet very intense. No blood had been shed, and
the only violence that had been offered was the tearing of a
piece of paper. Matters were to go farther in the next reign.
CHAPTER XXVI
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF JAMES I
England under Elizabeth had been unfriendly with Spain.
For thirty years the two countries, the one the champion of
Rome, the other the hope of the Protestants everywhere, had
been drifting towards war. From 1587 to the end of the reign
they were engaged in a war which still continued when James I
succeeded the old Queen. Neither Spain nor England had
crushed the other. Many people, indeed, hoped and expected
that a decisive blow might still be struck, and they wanted the
war to continue. Others, however, realised that peace must
come some day, and that there was little use in continuing a
war in which no prospect of victory was in sight.
^ James disliked war, nor, indeed, because of the personal
cowardice with which he is sometimes charged (this would not
be a reason for avoiding war, for he, as King, need not make
war in person if he did not care to do so), but because he was
proud of his ability in negotiating with foreign powers. He
boasted that he could gain more by diplomacy than by war.
The claim was probably justified, for the gains from war are
not always great and are not nearly so certain as its losses.
War is an appeal to force, and when fighting begins between
two countries diplomacy between them ceases. James, there-
fore, preferred peace, and took steps to end the Spanish war
which was proceeding at his accession. This was easier tor
him to do than it would have been for Elizabeth, ine
Spaniards were quite ready to make peace, but would have
hesitated to treat with Elizabeth, who had been excommunicated
and deposed by the Pope. But James had not been excom-
municated, and the Spanish King might make a treaty with hun
without acting against his conscience. In the treaty
re-established peace James gained very good terms, and jusofiea
his own high opinion of his ability. He did not S lve P
right to help the Dutch against Spam, and he refused to r -
nounce the English claim to trade with Spanish colonies. 1 de
134
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF JAMES I 135
Spanish had never recognised this right, though Hawkins, and
others after him, had endeavoured to trade in spite of Spanish
prohibition. . . . , . . . c
But peace with Spain did not mean friendship with Spam.
The most interesting person in western Europe at this time
was Henry IV, the first of the Bourbon kings of France.
Formerly a Huguenot, Henry had become a Catholic in order
to make sure of his hold on the crown of France. The French
were a nation of Catholics, the Huguenots (Protestants) forming
only a small minority, and a Catholic people was not likely to
accept a Huguenot king. But though Henry became a Catholic
he remained well disposed to the Huguenots, and his whole
sympathy and policy were on the side of Protestantism and
against the Catholic powers. He found that the two chief
Catholic countries, the Empire and Spain, pressed hardly upon
France. The Emperor in the east, Spain in the south-west
and the north-east, threatened the safety of his kingdom. It
was his aim to free France from this stranglehold. He began,
in fact, the Bourbon policy of attempting to provide France
with “natural boundaries” — the Pyrenees to the south-west,
the Maritime Alps to the south-east, the Alps and the Rhine
to the east and north-east. Many wars were fought, thousands
of men were slain, and masses of treasure were expended by
Henry's son and grandson, Louis XIII and Louis XIV, in
the vain endeavour to bring to pass this dream of natural
boundaries.
Henry formed an alliance of Protestant powers to combat
the Catholic league of Spain and the Empire. The German
Protestant princes, the Dutch, and James I all ranged them-
selves under Henry’s leadership, and a war between the
Catholic powers and the league was about to begin when
Henry was assassinated, in 1610. Such a war would have
settled much more than the boundaries of France. With all
the Protestant powers on one side and the chief Catholic powers
on the other side, it would have determined the religion of
Europe. It would have settled whether Protestantism was to
survive or whether the Reformation was to be stamped out.
The death of Henry IV postponed such a war. His son,
Louis XIII, was a child, whose mother, Marie de Medici,
ruled as Regent. Marie reversed her husband’s policy and
allied with Spain. Henry's league disappeared. James I, how-
ever, remained in touch with his other allies, and the marriage of
THE STUART PERIOD
his daughter Elizabeth, in 1613, to Frederick, the Elector Palatine,
who was looked upon as the leader of the Protestant group of
German princes, indicated that James was on definitely
friendly terms with them. He saw that the European war
which was about to begin when Henry IV died was merely
Boundary of France in 1610 .
Shaded areas represent annexations, 1610 - 1715 -
“Natural” Boundaries of France.
France in the Seventeenth Century
postponed and not averted. His great desire was to br mg
about a settlement of the European religious question which
should make the war unnecessary. In order that h ^ ™? ' of
able to do this it was needful for him to secure a pos
commanding influence with both sides. He M
well with the Protestant princes If he could s ““ r “ n ^ ice
footing with Spam he would be so placed that tas *
would be listened to with respect by both the Catholic
137
THE FOREIGN POLICY OF JAMES I
Protestant sides. He would be the arbiter of Europe, and he
would use his influence in the cause of peace.
From the year 1614 onward James sought the friendship of
Spain. It is easy to criticise this aim on the ground that a
Catholic and a Protestant alliance were inconsistent with each
other. Yet the two sides were so evenly matched, and the issue
of a conflict so uncertain, that neither cared to risk offending a
powerful King. And if both were on apparently friendly terms
with him, both would be compelled to listen to him. James’s
plan, therefore, was not altogether foolish.
As was the case in Tudor times, the visible sign of an alliance
was a royal marriage, and it was proposed that Charles, the
Prince of Wales, should marry a Spanish princess, the Infanta
Maria. The difficulties in the way of the marriage were
enormous. The unpopularity of the match in both countries,
due to the difference in religion, would have caused most
kings to drop the proposal. But negotiations went on.
At this time James sanctioned an adventure which was quite
inconsistent with real friendship with Spain. Sir Walter
Raleigh, the famous Elizabethan voyager, had been involved
in treason at the beginning of the reign, and had been con-
demned to death, though the sentence had not been carried out.
From 1604 to 1616 he had been a prisoner in the Tower, and
he now offered to lead an expedition to Guiana, in South
America, in search of a gold mine. James stipulated that the
Spanish should not be attacked, and Raleigh asserted that the
mine was remote from any Spanish settlement. Arrived at
the Orinoco, the expedition found a new Spanish settlement at
San Thome. Raleigh was ill, and one of his lieutenants
attacked the town and burned it. But no mine was found, and
Raleigh, in desperation, proposed a raid on the Spanish treasure
fleet. His men, however, insisted on returning to England,
where he was arrested upon arrival. The Spanish ambassador
demanded his surrender as a pirate. If James refused it
would be an admission that he had sanctioned the expedition,
and there would be an end of friendship with Spain. To
avoid the unpleasant necessity of giving him up, James had
Raleigh executed on the old sentence passed in 1604.
Matters came to a head in Germany in 1618. The Emperor
Matthias was King of Bohemia, and he wished to secure the
succession of his cousin Ferdinand to the Bohemian throne.
The Bohemians recognised Ferdinand as the heir of Matthias,
F
THE STUART PERIOD
but a number of Protestant nobles disregarded the election.
They revolted against the Emperor and chose James’s son-in-
law, Frederick, Elector Palatine, to be their King. Fighting
occurred, and Frederick was defeated at the Battle of the White
Hill and was expelled from Bohemia. Princes on both sides
took up arms, Spain entered into the war, fighting became
general, and in the turmoil Frederick was driven from the Pala-
tinate by Spanish troops. The war which James had foreseen
and had tried to avert had begun.
Could he stop it? He thought that he could. He and his
people were at one in wishing to see the Elector restored to
the Palatinate. But while the people clamoured for war with
Spain, James continued negotiations, and not without some
hope of success. The Spanish were anxious that England
should not intervene, and if it had been certain that a Spanish
refusal to restore the Palatinate to Frederick would have been
followed by an Anglo-Spanish war they might have given
way. Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador in England, was
convinced, however, that James's love of peace would prove
too strong and that he would not fight, and accordingly the
Spanish army remained in the Palatinate. James continued
to negotiate. English volunteers joined the army of the
unlucky Elector in great numbers, but no English army
appeared. . _ •
Matters dragged on. The proposed marriage of the Prince
of Wales did not take place. Yet the match was not abandoned,
and in 1623 the Prince, with his friend the Duke of Bucking-
ham, visited Madrid in secret. Their presence was discovered
and they were treated with courtesy. But no good came or
the incident. They became convinced that the marriage would
never take place unless the Prince became a Roman Cathohc.
They returned, and the match was broken off. This, at least,
was to the liking of the people, as it brought war nearer. 1 he
King could hold out no longer. War began in 1624.
was promised by Christian IV, King of Denmark A large
army P was sent under Count Mansfeld to help the Elector.
The expedition was mismanaged and was a failure. y
1625 James died, leaving the country as he had found it, at
war with Spain.
CHAPTER XXVII
JAMES I AND HIS MINISTERS
The character of James I presents an interesting study. He
has been criticised more than most modern English kings, and
in some ways this criticism is undeserved. If it be true that
his personal appearance was unpleasing, this is a physical
matter that is unworthy of consideration. It is said that he
was a coward, and that he shuddered at the sight of a drawn
sword. But this is small evidence of cowardice, and the fact
that he was fond of hunting proves that he was not afraid of
risking hard knocks and broken bones.
James was well educated, and was much more learned than
the average king of his time. He was versed in logic, and his
powers of reasoning were great. He possessed much theo-
logical knowledge, and was able not merely to settle but to
understand the religious quarrels of his time. A French
statesman is said to have described him as the wisest fool in
Christendom. This epithet has remained, and he has in
consequence borne a rather undeserved reputation for stupidity.
It may be said that one of the characteristics of a great
man is that his ideas are in advance of his time. The man
whose views are those of the mass of the people is no greater
than they are. But he who can look ahead, who can put forth
ideals, and who can guide the course of events towards their
fulfilment, is fitted to be a leader of men. Judged by this
standard, James was a great man. He saw, at a time when his
people did not see, the desirability of union between England
and Scotland. A century elapsed before the union was brought
about, and not until long afterwards did people on both sides
of the border become fully reconciled to it. He saw that peace
was preferable to war. In this he was even farther advanced,
for some people are not fully convinced of it yet.
For nothing else has he been so unsparingly condemned as
tor his foreign policy. Yet if it proved to be unworkable it
at least represented a great ideal. To be the arbiter of Europe
139
THE STUART PERIOD
140
in order to arrange without war a settlement of the religious
question which should be acceptable to both sides was a
worthy aim. James, indeed, was unable to carry out his
purpose, but it is doubtful if any man could have succeeded.
The religious hatreds in Europe were such that bloodshed
proved to be inevitable.
James's leading minister till 1612 was. Sir Robert Cecil,
Earl of Salisbury, the son of Elizabeth's minister, William
Cecil, Lord Burleigh. Salisbury worked hard, and exercised
great influence on the King’s policy at home and abroad until
his death in 1612. Sir Edward Coke, Attorney-General, was
a friend of Salisbury, and he became Lord Chief Justice, but
he was never in high favour at court, and in 1616 was dismissed
from his position. Salisbury's cousin, Francis Bacon, was
slower in securing promotion. He at length became Attorney-
General, and in 1618 was appointed Lord Chancellor, which
office he held until his fall in 1621.
On Salisbury’s death James for a time came under the
influence of Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset. He proved
unworthy of the royal friendship, and he and his wife fell
under suspicion of being concerned in a murder. When
Carr fell, a younger man became the King’s confidant George
Villiers, who was appointed Lord High Admiral. He became
Duke of Buckingham in 1623, and directed the King s policy in
all ways towards the end of the reign. He was as great a
friend of the Prince of Wales as of the King, and he continued
in power after Charles became King, until his assassination in
1628. He was hated by the Puritan party, since he leaned
to Arminian views. He was disliked by the nobles of the
court on account of his arrogance. In considering whether
Buckingham deserved the condemnation which has been
bestowed upon him it should be remembered that it is pwbab
that any other man in his place would have 1 seen equaUy
detested. He was said to be incompetent, but the charge 1 was
brought by those who hated him. He opposed the monopobsts
who were impeached in 1621, and he advised the King to redress
grievances. While he was Lord High Admiral the « a W
strengthened. And he did not oppose the meetmg of Parha
ment He aimed at securing the co-operation of Par ^ e “
with the King for the good of the country. In ^ seven y ^ ie f
1621-28, no fewer than five Parliaments met. That th
aim was to get rid of him was not altogether his fault.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES 1
Charles I succeeded his father early in 1625. He was a
young man and had been well educated. He was deeply
religious, he believed absolutely in the divine character of his
position, and he had a strong sense of his duty. He was not
a man of great ability, however, and, though he might be
obstinate in following what he thought to be his duty, he was
in other ways often hesitating and uncertain, not infrequently
changing his mind, and rarely or never giving his full confidence
to his advisers.
A few weeks after his accession he married a French princess,
Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry IV, and sister of Louis
XIII. The new Queen was only fifteen years old at the time of
her wedding. She was a Roman Catholic, but the French
court, in its enmity towards Spain, had not the same objection
as the Spanish to a princess marrying a heretic King. Yet the
marriage was little more popular in England than a Spanish
match would have been, and it was open to much the same
objections. It had been argued that, if the King married the
Infanta, his children would be partly Spanish by birth and
that later Stuart kings would lean to Spain and Roman
Catholicism. This proved to be true of the French marriage.
The later Stuarts leaned strongly on France. One took the
French King’s money; the other fled to France for refuge.
Both became Roman Catholics. Henrietta Maria at first
exercised small influence over the King. She was little more
than a child, but as she grew to womanhood he fell genuinely
in love with her, and she was able to control his policy to a
great extent. Her influence, however, was not always to his
advantage.
During the year of his accession Charles called his first
Parliament. He had two reasons for doing so. In the first
place, he expected that the usual grant of tunnage and pound-
age for life would be made, so that his income might be on the
141
142
THE STUART PERIOD
same basis as that of his father. In addition, he intended to
ask for a grant of money for the war with Spain. He had no
doubt that both expectations would be fulfilled. The first
was in accordance with a precedent of two and a quarter
centuries. And the nation had been eager for war to be
declared against Spaing and ought to be willing to pay for it.
To his surprise and indignation Parliament did not act as
he wished. They granted him tunnage and poundage for one
year only, and they granted two only of the twelve subsidies
for which he had hoped for the war. The King naturally
regarded these proceedings as an affront to his dignity. If
he was ever in doubt as to the cause of such parliamentary
action he was soon enlightened. Parliament proceeded to
make complaints about the Duke of Buckingham, and the King
perceived that if he would dismiss the Duke he would get from
Parliament the money he wanted. He preferred to dispense
with Parliament.
Operations against Spain were necessarily on a more limited
scale than they would have been if Parliament had made a
more generous grant. An expedition, under the command of
Sir Edward Cecil, Lord Wimbledon, was fitted out to attack
Cadiz. The plan was that the Spanish port should be captured
just before the arrival there of the treasure fleet which crossed
the Atlantic annually, bearing the year’s produce of the mines
of Central and South America. The fleet would, it was hoped,
sail into Cadiz harbour, be promptly seized by the English,
and be taken to England. The advantages of the plan were
many. If successful, it would deal a heavy blow at Spanish
finances for the year, and it would provide Charles with funds
without further recourse to Parliament. It smacked, more-
over, of the daring of Elizabethan times, and the achievement
would be immensely gratifying to Englishmen. King ana
Duke would share in a blaze of popularity, and there would
be little to fear from future Parliaments. It is not too mucn
to say that the complete success of this effort might hav
changed the whole course of the reign.
But the expedition failed. Cadiz was not captured, and an
effort to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat by
treasure fleet at sea was equally unsuccessful, smce the galleons
we?e not even met. Thefiasco left Charles with no alternative
to the calling of a second Parliament.
With full knowledge of the King’s embarrassments
EARLY YEARS OF REIGN OF CHARLES I 143
Commons in the new Parliament, emboldened by the success
of the attacks on two important ministers in the previous reign,
resolved to impeach Buckingham. But the charges against
him were not well chosen. They wanted not merely his down-
fall but his death, and to compass this they must bring a charge
of treason. Treason is a crime against the King. Yet the
Duke had for some years been on terms of close friendship with
the King, and to prove that he had acted traitorously would be
very difficult. Definite charges were, indeed, brought forward,
but they were difficult to prove, and if they had been proved
it is probable that they would not have amounted to treason.
Had the impeachment run its course the Duke ought to, and
probably would, have been acquitted. But the King would
not risk the issue. He imprisoned Sir John Eliot, the leader
of the impeachment, for a short time, in the hope of stopping
the proceedings, but when Eliot was released the trial was
resumed. To end it Charles dissolved Parliament.
He now found himself involved in war with France. As he
had so recently indicated by his marriage his friendship with
that country, this may seem strange. Many minor matters
contributed to the breach, but one of the causes was the personal
enmity of Buckingham and Cardinal Richelieu, the leading
man in France. The war was a serious mistake for Charles.
If he had not enough money to carry on one war he was in
worse plight with two on his hands. He should have made
up his mind clearly what he wanted to do. If he intended to
retain all his royal rights and not to give way to Parliament
he should have withdrawn from foreign wars. If he wanted to
exert a great influence in European affairs he should have come
to some agreement with his Parliament. He could not fight
his foreign enemies and his Parliament at the same time. But
he did not yet understand this.
Money was wanted for the French war. To call a third
Parliament seemed useless, and Charles resorted to the levying
of a forced loan. This was really a tax imposed by the King
without the consent of Parliament, for the amount to be
contributed by each man was fixed, and though it was called
a loan there was little chance of the money ever being repaid.
There was much opposition, and pressure was applied by the
King s agents to those who were expected to lend the money.
m f n We f J e brou § ht before military courts on
charges of disloyalty ; soldiers were sent to live in the homes of
144
THE STUART PERIOD
others who would not pay. Five knights who refused to pay
were imprisoned by the King. By such means money was
raised — not so much, however, as the King wanted.
At this time Richelieu and the King of France were about
to besiege Rochelle. The city was a stronghold of the Hugue-
nots, who were holding out against the Crown. English
sympathy was of course with the besieged, and it was decided
to send a fleet and army to help them. With the money
raised by “loan'’ a fleet was prepared, and it sailed under the
personal command of Buckingham. Rochelle being on the
coast, its siege would not be complete unless it was blockaded
by sea as well as by land. At the entrance to the harbour
was a small island called Rh£, and on the island was a fort,
St. Martin. Whoever held the fort and the island controlled
entrance to and exit from the harbour. Buckingham landed
his men on the island and attacked the fort, which was occupied
by the French. But a relieving French force landed and
attacked him in the rear. He was beaten back to his ships,
and returned to England. He was blamed for the failure,
which he attributed to the insufficiency of his forces. With
adequate reinforcements he might have won. The King
would have given him more if he had had more money. Thus
the responsibility for Buckingham's failure was by the King’s
partisans attributed to Parliament.
A third Parliament was now required; it met in 1628. It
strongly resented the King's method of raising money during
the previous year, and it presented to him the Petition of Right,
which dealt with matters arising out of the raising of the forced
loan. The Petition asked the royal assent to the following
demands:
(1) No tax or loan of any kind to be levied without consent
of Parliament.
(2) No person to be imprisoned without cause shown.
(3) Billeting of soldiers and sailors on private persons to
CC3S0 «
(4) No person to be put on trial by court-martial in time
of peace.
The King was reluctant to such definite limitations being
placed on his authority. Had he not been in desperate need
of money he would have refused. He gave an evasive answer
at first/but Parliament pressed for his direct and form
' ,1 L ■
V, ^ t v>_ • ■
EARLY YEARS OF REIGN OF CHARLES I 145
consent. He gave it, and the Petition became a law. Parlia-
ment granted him five subsidies (worth about £400,000).
This was a larger sum than the King had hitherto been given,
and instead of dissolving Parliament he prorogued it, that is,
he sent it away, but reserved, the right of calling it together
again. Perhaps he thought that a Parliament which would
grant such a considerable sum might repeat its liberality in
the following year.
With the money another expedition was fitted out for the
relief of Rochelle. It was about to sail when Buckingham was
murdered at Portsmouth by a Puritan fanatic named Felton.
Delay occurred, and when the fleet (now under the command
of the Earl of Lindsey) at length reached Rochelle it was no
more successful than its predecessor. Soon afterwards Rochelle
was captured by the French.
The death of Buckingham deprived Charles of his one real
friend. Although Parliament had pressed for his removal
ever since the beginning of the reign, the King gained nothing
by the death of his minister. Hitherto it had been possible
for Parliament to profess great loyalty to the King, and to take
the view that the evils of which complaint was made were due
to the bad advice of the favourite. Now that he was dead
criticism was directed against the King himself.
In 1629 the third Parliament reassembled. If the King hoped
for a further grant he was to be disappointed. Parliament
was full of complaints. He was still levying tunnage and
poundage, although the one year for which it was granted had
long since expired. Some members asserted that this was a
violation of the Petition of Right, although tunnage and
poundage had not been mentioned definitely in the Petition.
The King had imprisoned a merchant who was a member of
Parliament for refusing to pay, so that the question was com-
plicated by a claim that the privilege of members of Parlia-
ment to be free from arrest had been violated. Religious
matters, also, came up for discussion. Parliament was largely
Puritan, and the fact that the King had appointed Arminian
clergy to be bishops and to be royal chaplains was strongly
resented. Resolutions were proposed that any one who paid
tunnage and poundage while it was levied without parliamentary
consent, or who advised the levying of these duties, or who
introduced innovations in religion, was an enemy of the State,
i he Speaker, acting on private instructions from the King,
THE STUART PERIOD
146
tried to prevent the passing of the resolutions by leaving the
chair. Members rushed forward and held him forcibly in
his place while the resolutions were put to the House and
carried. This scene of disorder was of course followed by the
dissolution of Parliament, and by the imprisonment of certain
members who had taken part in it. Sir John Eliot was again
sent to the Tower, where he was strictly confined and died
in 1632.
The King now realised that harmony between himself and
Parliament was impossible. To give up his whole way of
government in order to secure parliamentary approval was
unthinkable, and he decided that in future he would rule
without Parliament.
CHAPTER XXIX
THE NON -PARLIAMENTARY RULE OF CHARLES I
For a space of eleven years Charles I ruled without a Parlia-
ment. In doing this he was acting within his legal rights, as
no law existed which would compel him to call a Parliament.
But he would get no further grant of money for his wars, and
he soon saw that if he would do without Parliament he must
do without wars. Accordingly, he made peace with France
in 1629 and with Spain in 1630, and he abandoned all hope of
restoring the Elector Palatine to his dominions. With his
ordinary income he might hope to rule the country without
parliamentary assistance, but only so long as war could be
averted. His system of non-parliamentary rule would last while
peace lasted. It would collapse on the outbreak of war.
Even in time of peace, and with the exercise of rigid economy,
Charles’s income was none too large, and he resorted to various
expedients to increase it. It should not be assumed, however,
that his financial devices were illegal, though some of them were
certainly vexatious. Even the continued levy of tunnage and
poundage without consent of Parliament might be justified by
a royalist lawyer on the ground of precedent, and by refer-
ence to the admitted right of the Crown to regulate trade.
Further, tunnage and poundage were not mentioned in the
Petition of Right, and the omission might be construed into
an indirect admission of the King's right to continue the levy.
Charles also made money by the grant of monopolies, the
recipients of which were expected to pay for the privilege
given them. Often, in addition, a ** royalty" had to be paid on
each article made or sold. This might seem to be, but was not,
a violation of the Statute of 1624* which prohibited the grant
of monopolies to individual persons. The law did not debar
companies from holding monopolies and did not intend to do
so, since foreign trade was usually carried on by monopolistic
companies. Charles granted monopolies to companies tradin®
or manufacturing in England, which had not been contemplated
by the framers of the Statute.
147
148 THE STUART PERIOD
He revived an old law of the reign of Edward III by which
all men who owned land of the yearly value of £40 or upwards
were to become knights. This law, which had never been
repealed, was intended to provide a sufficient force of knights
for the royal army. Charles used it to replenish his purse.
Knighthood was to be had only from the King, and fees were
payable on receipt of the honour. Those who neglected the
law were fined. By fees or by fines the King profited.
Charles instituted an inquiry into the limits of the Crown
lands in various parts of the country. He suspected that many
neighbouring landowners, or their ancestors, had encroached
on royal lands. Without the King’s knowledge stretches of
forest had been enclosed. The inquiry revealed that much
of what had formerly been Crown land was in private hands.
Unless a clear title could be proved by its owner it was taken
back by the King, and the offending person was fined. These
proceedings were nor illegal, but they were harsh and often
unjust — harsh, because the encroachment was probably made
by an ancestor of the existing holder, and unjust, because in
many cases the land had really been granted away by a former
King, though the document which would have proved this had
been lost.
The most notable and most criticised of Charles's expedients
for raising money was ship-money. It was a tax levied by
the King's authority in order to provide ships for the navy.
Objection was raised by John Hampden, a gentleman of Buck-
inghamshire, who refused to pay his contribution of twenty
shillings. The case came before the Court of Exchequer
Chamber, and was argued before twelve judges. On Hampden s
behalf three arguments were brought forward. It was contended
that the tax had hitherto been levied on coast counties only,
while it was now being imposed on inland counties as well.
To this it was replied that naval defence was a matter or
importance to all, whether on the coast or inland. It was
argued also that hitherto the tax had been levied only in case
of necessity. The reply was that someone must be the judge
of such necessity, and that it was the King’s right to determine
when the tax became necessary. The third argument on
behalf of Hampden was that the tax had been levied without
the authority of Parliament, and the royal reply took the form
of a claim that the authority of the Crown was sufficien *
can hardly be doubted that, on the first two points, the Crown
NON-PARLIAMENTARY RULE OF CHARLES I 149
argument was reasonable; on the third point Hampden would
seem to have been right. But the judges thought differently.
Seven of them decided for the King and five for Hampden,
who, therefore, lost his case and was ordered to pay. The
importance of the case was, to the King, that it declared he
was acting legally in levying ship-money; to his opponents,
that, if such was the law, then the law must be altered as soon
as opportunity offered. It should be added that the money
which was raised was spent on the building of ships, and that
the need for the tax lay in the presence of pirates in the
English Channel.
By such various means, all within the law, the King tried to
raise a little money to eke out his inadequate income. With the
utmost care he was unable to avoid falling into debt, and his
difficulties grew greater as the years went on.
His chief ministers in this period were Sir Thomas Went-
worth, who became Earl of Strafford, and William Laud,
Bishop of London, who became Archbishop of Canterbury
in 1633. Wentworth had been one of the King's opponents
in the first and third Parliaments (he was not a member of
the second) because he disliked Buckingham, but before the
King's friend was murdered Wentworth changed sides and
supported the Crown. He was for some years President of
the Council of the North, and was very powerful in the north
of England. In 1633 he became Lord Deputy of Ireland, but
he wrote to Charles frequently, and in English affairs the King
acted under his guidance. Laud, an Arminian, succeeded
Abbot as Archbishop of Canterbury. He was high-minded,
learned, able, and earnest, and turned his attention to the
restoration of order in the Church. He held that the Puritans
were wrong in many of the changes they had introduced, and
m the course of a few years he did much to earn their dislike.
He ordered the use of certain vestments, known as copes,
lT } u c L athed, ; als - He insisted that the altar in every church
shou d be at the east end of the building, and that a rail should
be placed before it. In some places, it seems, the altar had
been put in the middle of the church, and people had left their
hats on it during divine service, and had even used it as a
In S T e churches where Puritan influence
fhZ lu*’ 1C ? Ur l S 1 and se , rmons were delivered at times other
n ha u h oL public worship. Laud ordered that the services
m the Book of Common Prayer should be used on all such
i 5 o THE STUART PERIOD
occasions. He permitted people who had attended divine
service to engage in 44 lawful sports " on Sundays. Much to the
disgust of the Puritans, football, dancing, and archery were
practised on the village greens throughout the land on Sundays
with the full approval of the Archbishop. Laud was bitterly
criticised for doing these things; but it should be remembered
that he was trying to secure obedience to the law, which his
opponents were disregarding.
The proceedings of the King and his ministers during this
period were not such as to win for them popularity. There
can be no doubt that public opinion was hardening against
them. If the King had been wiser he would have tried to act
in such a way as to win the support of the mass of his people ;
he could then have afforded to disregard the mutterings of
Puritan and parliamentarian extremists. As things were,
such men became the leaders and directors of popular discon-
tent. Yet no rebellion occurred. The King had no standing
army, and revolt would have been easy. That it did not
happen is proof that the burden of his rule was not yet felt
to be intolerable.
During this period Charles relied for support upon the
Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission and the Council
of the North. The High Commission Court had been estab-
lished in the reign of Queen Elizabeth to deal with Church
affairs, and it was used by Archbishop Laud in carrying out his
reforms. The Council of the North, established by Henry VIII,
and the Star Chamber, which dated from the time of HenryVII,
were used by Charles I in the maintenance of his authority.
Many cases came before these courts, which distinguished
themselves by their severity and soon became odious to the
King’s opponents. .
Much of the King's attention during this period was directed
to his northern kingdom. Charles visited Scotland in 1033
and was crowned King of Scots. He took the opportunity to
extend his father's measures for union between the Churcn
of England and that of Scotland. James had restored bishops
in the latter in 1610. Charles now increased their number
and extended their power. Laud, who accompanied e
King, gave great offence by trying to secure the wearing
surplices by "the Scottish clergy. He caused a Prayer Book to
be drawn up for use in the Scottish Church. The v
was ready by 1637, and the King ordered .t to be used. Such a
NON-PARLIAMENTARY RULE OF CHARLES I 151
storm of opposition arose, however, that Charles for once
bowed to it, and suspended the use of the new book.
The objections of the Scots to this new Prayer Book were
manifold. The book itself was an excellent production.
Nevertheless, it was better suited to England than to Scotland.
The Scots objected to any set form of prayer. In the Scottish
Church long extempore prayers were commonly used, and the
introduction of set forms seemed to the clergy and people to
smack of popery. But the greatest objection was that the book
came from a foreign source. Canterbury was, to them, in a
foreign country, and its Archbishop was a foreign prelate.
Their objection to a book which came from Canterbury was
of precisely the same character as the English objection to
papal authority in England.
The King called a General Assembly of the Scottish Church
to meet at Glasgow in 1638. In Scotland a General Assembly
consisted of representatives of the Church all over the country,
and as most Scots were members of the “Kirk” the Assembly
was much more truly representative of the people than Parlia-
ment was, since in the latter body the nobles were much more
powerful than the elected members. The Assembly was called
to consider the Prayer Book; it abolished the Prayer Book,
and it abolished the bishops. Meanwhile, committees were
appointed to control national affairs, and a Covenant was drawn
up, to which all might swear, to “maintain the purity of the
Gospel as established before the recent novations.” The Scots
were not very true to fact in describing bishops and a Prayer
Book as “novations,” since there had always been bishops in
their Church except in the period 1560-1610, and there had
always been a set form of prayer till 1560. But they were
terribly in earnest.
The King upon hearing of the proceedings of the Assembly
ordered it to disperse. It refused, and in consequence became
a rebel assembly. Thereupon Charles collected forces, and
marched north to reduce Scotland to order. But the Assembly
raised forces. Scotland had not experienced any fighting for
the past seventy years, but many thousands of Scots had fought
as volunteers in the Thirty Years War, and Leslie, the Scottish
commander, soon found himself at the head of an army of
etermined veterans, who had learned to fight for Protestantism
m Germany and were ready to defend their faith at home.
The King reached Berwick, to find that the road into Scotland
152 THE STUART PERIOD
was commanded by Leslie's troops. No fighting occurred in
this, the first Bishops' War. An agreement was reached
that another. General Assembly should be summoned to meet
at Edinburgh.
Charles had gained nothing but a little time. He had no
hope that a second General Assembly would reverse the
decisions of the first, but he wanted to be better prepared to
meet his rebellious Scottish subjects. To wage war he needed
money. He broke his resolution and called a Parliament.
The members met in angry mood. The King proposed a
bargain to them. If they would give him twelve subsidies
(about £900,000) he would give up his right to levy ship-money.
They refused, and the Short Parliament was dissolved.
The second General Assembly merely confirmed the pro-
ceedings of the first. The King dissolved it, and again the
Scots took up arms. In the second Bishops' War, without
waiting for Charles to invade their country, the Scots entered
Northumberland. The King hastened north with such forces
as he could raise, only to be defeated in a battle at Newburn,
on the Tyne. An agreement was drawn up at Ripon, by which
the Scots were to remain in possession of the counties of
Northumberland and Durham, and the King was to pay them
£850 a day until the outstanding questions in Scotland were
settled. He would never have engaged to do this had he not
been compelled to do so by his defeat. The money could
never be raised without a parliamentary grant. But Charles
made one last effort to avoid meeting a Parliament. He called
the peers of England to meet him, and advise him, at York.
They advised him to summon a Parliament.
His system of non-parliamentary rule had lasted while peace
had been maintained. But war had come; an enemy had
invaded the kingdom and had taken possession of the northern
counties. The King could do without a Parliament no longer.
V l " ,u ' l,n
W ’»' vt^uanmt
r ^** CG / asgoW — -
V\""""' ''-A
i»~. — Scots, /64o.
— ( Bermck - York- M ar s t on Moor )
. ,. , Scots /G4-+.
- — — — - • ( Car/iSJe - Warrington)
Scots ; / 64 tf.
(St/r/inq-Worcester)
, , Charles U , / 65 /.
(p e r£h . Worcester)
Cromwell, 1651.
Berwick
Wf" ^
. A4V I ./
?5\
0 \ M I H
' % f . I
'•V ;
v i Durham
^ 1 jy / rf^rjiaa
CipT>-
• Wigan' hy
foor*
York
in ' 1
• UttoxqterJo
HP
v/ . Word
r .1 1 1
'wick.
I /V""
^ / r
The Four Scottish Invasions of England, 1640-51
CHAPTER XXX
THE LONG PARLIAMENT! BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF THE
GREAT REBELLION
The Long Parliament met on 3rd November, 1640, in deter-
mined mood. Its members felt that, with the King in such
desperate need for money, they had him cornered at last, and
they were minded to make full use of their opportunity. They
were resolved, in fact, to destroy his system of government,
utterly and completely. The King's ministers, his financial
system, his courts, and his personal rule without Parliament
being summoned — all were to go.
Parliament's first business was to bring about the fall of
the King's ministers. Several impeachments were begun, of
which the two most important were those of Wentworth and
Laud. The Archbishop was committed to the Tower, but his
impeachment was not pressed forward at the time, and he
remained a prisoner for more than four years. #
Wentworth, now Earl of Strafford, had been in Ireland for
some - years as Lord Deputy. His rule there 1 was much
criticised, but he at least kept peace and order. When Charles
determined to call Parliament he desired Strafford to come
home, in order that he might be in close touch with him and
have the benefit of his advice in this critical time. Strafford
did not wish to return. He had been a member of the parlia-
mentary party at the beginning of the reign and he feared, , an
with good reason, that the leaders of the new Parliament
would hate him bitterly for turning to the King s side.
Impeachment was to be feared. In Ireland, with an army
his back, Strafford might laugh at the efforts of his enemies
bring him to trial; in London, it was a more serious matter.
The King, however, insisted on his return to Engbnd, ff
promised him that “they shall not harm a hair of your ^ead.
He came to Parliament, was impeached at once, and
committed to the Tower.
154
THE LONG PARLIAMENT 155
The Commons soon found that it would be difficult to prove
Strafford guilty of treason. Treason was a crime against the
King, and, as in Buckingham's case, the real fault of Strafford
in the eyes of Parliament was his support of the King.
Definite charges were brought against him, but he defended
himself with vigour, and in any case the charges did not amount
to treason. His enemies produced a scrap of paper, a letter
or memorandum, said to have been sent by Strafford to the
King, in which he suggested that Charles should use the Irish
army to crush the Scots. But instead of using the word
“Scotland" he wrote “this country," although there could
be no possible doubt of his meaning. Scotland was at the
time in rebellion; England was not. Yet the Commons argued
that Strafford was referring to England, and that in proposing
to bring the Irish army over to England he was levying war
against the King (which would be treason). As though a man
who was considering the making of war against his King would
tell the King all about it first! The case against the Earl was,
in fact, remarkably weak, and there was every prospect that
he would be acquitted.
The impeachment, therefore, was dropped. But Strafford
was not liberated. The angry Commons decided to bring in
a Bill of Attainder against him. (An Act of Attainder is an
Act of Parliament which declares a man to be guilty of treason.
No trial is necessary and no opportunity need be given to the
unfortunate man to defend himself.) A few of the members
seem to have been uneasy about the justice of this new move,
but only fifty-nine voted against the Bill in the House of
Commons. Their names were printed and placarded in
London under the heading, “ Straffordians— betrayers of their
country. This description was applied to men who refused
to agree to the execution of a prisoner without trial !
It seemed likely, however, that the House of Lords would
reject the Bill. If the Lords were unwilling to condemn
Strafford after trial, they would be even less likely to send him
to his death without a hearing. They wavered, but at the
critical time news was spread of an alleged “Army Plot."
It was said that the Queen was raising an army with which
to march on London in order to dissolve Parliament and
t-j 6 ^ tra “ or£ ^* An excited London mob gathered outside
the Houses of Parliament, shouting for the death of the Earl.
1 he Lords, in fear, passed the Bill.
THE STUART PERIOD
It remained necessary to obtain the King’s consent in order
that the Bill should become law, and Charles had promised
that Strafford should suffer no harm. For two days, at
Whitehall, he remained undecided. If he agreed, his promise
was broken and his honour soiled. If he stood by his friend
he would get no money from Parliament (and the Scots were
still in the kingdom), and, moreover, threats of impeaching the
Queen reached his ears. His very crown would be in danger.
The angry mob demanded Strafford's death. Courtiers with
drawn swords prepared to guard the passages of the palace
against an inrush of the people. In the midst of his hesitancy
the King received a message from the Earl, giving him back his
promise. He took Strafford at his word and signed the Bill.
On 1 2th May, 1641, the Earl was beheaded.
Out of the whole affair only one person emerged with
unsullied reputation, and that the victim. The King's honour
was tarnished. Besides, his action was a mistake. He gained
nothing by it, not even a grant of money, and he lost a friend.
In the dark days to come the presence by his side of such a
man as Strafford might have changed defeat into victory. Even
if he acted in fear for his crown and his life (though it is but
fair to state that he was influenced by fear for the Queens
safety rather than his own), by his action he merely post-
poned, and made more certain, the loss of both. Had he
fallen at this juncture he would have borne a higher repu-
tation than is his to-day. Nor did Parliament show up well.
The Lords acted from craven fear, the Commons from
undying hate. Men learned, moreover, that as much, perhaps
more, was to be feared from parliamentary as from royal
^The^ommons were jubilant. “Has he given us Strafford?
Then he can refuse us nothing," said Pym, the leader of the
Commons. They proceeded with the work of sweeping away
the machinery of the King's government. Tonnage and
poundage, ship-money, and various other eM ^ lons r '^
declared illegal without consent of Parliament. The Cou
of Star Chamber and High Commission and
the North were abolished. An act was passed declaring
this Parliament might be dissolved only with
and a Triennial Act ordered that no more than three y
should elapse without a meeting of Parliament. J g
looked on and agreed to one thing after another, helpless.
THE LONG PARLIAMENT 157
long as the Scots occupied the north of England. Having
done so much, the Commons granted him a little money.
They gave him tunnage and poundage for two months, and
renewed the grant every two months for about a year.
But there were indications that the Commons were no
longer unanimous. Their primary purpose, of destroying
Charles's system of government, was achieved. Some wanted
to go farther, but many thought they had gone far enough,
and were prepared to resist proposals to limit the King’s power
still more. Hitherto the Commons had contained the merest
nucleus of a Court party, but from this time onward nearly
half the House supported the Crown.
A proposal was made by the Puritan section that the Church
should be reformed by the abolition of bishops. This would,
of course, make it like the Church of Scotland, in which a
similar proposal had just been carried by the General Assembly.
This “Root and Branch Bill" was warmly debated, and it
was opposed so vigorously that it was dropped. It was clear
that the extreme Puritans were not numerous enough in the
House of Commons to settle everything in their own way.
Parliament then separated for a short holiday.
During the interval between the two sessions Charles visited
Scotland, and came to an agreement with the Presbyterian
leaders by which he yielded to their demands in the matter of
the Scottish Church, while they withdrew their army from the
north of England. During his stay in Edinburgh a plot, called
“ the Incident," to seize Argyll and other Presbyterian leaders,
was discovered. Charles denied all knowledge of it, but it
did no good to his cause. Before his return he found that
certain parliamentary leaders had been communicating with
the Scots for some time past.
He returned to London prepared to deal more vigorously
with his Parliament now that he was no longer menaced by a
foreign invasion. He was determined to get rid of it, though
he was for a time uncertain whether to attack the leading
members or not. Parliament had met for a second session
during his absence, and began its proceedings by drawing
top the Grand Remonstrance, a document which enumerated
the various matters which had given ground for complaint
smee Charles became King. This reached his ear before his
return, and he hastened back, thinking that Parliament would
not dare to pass the Remonstrance after he had reached London.
158
THE STUART PERIOD
But he was not in time. The Remonstrance was passed and
presented to him.
This fact helped him to decide to take proceedings against
those members of the House of Commons who had secretly
written to the Scots. As the latter were at the time in arms
against Charles, such conduct was 44 aiding the King's enemies,”
and this amounted to treason. The Queen urged him to arrest
the offenders. He went with soldiers to the House of Commons
to arrest five members, and found that they had fled, so that
he had to retire without them. He had made a bad blunder,
for he had violated the privilege of the House of Commons
by entering it when it was sitting, and his personal dignity
suffered through his failure to secure the culprits. He was
wrong in trying personally to arrest them. He should have
given orders, and left the actual arrest to others. He incurred
the resentment of the Commons and excited the feeling of the
mob, and he spoilt what might have been an excellent oppor-
tunity of dealing a blow at his opponents by the improper way
in which he handled it.
The failure made Charles determine to get rid of Parliament
at once. With any other Parliament an ordinary proclama-
tion that it was dissolved would have been enough, but this
Parliament would refuse to go if dismissed. Charles, there-
fore, found it necessary to wait till he had an army at his back
to enforce his proclamation. He left London to raise an
army with which he might return and dissolve Parliament.
He certainly did not know that he was embarking upon a
long and disastrous struggle which was to end in his death.
Parliament suspected the King's purpose in leaving London,
and in its turn began to raise forces for its own protection, ana
to prevent him from dissolving it.
Neither side was quite ready to fight. Parliament passe
a bill to remove bishops from the House of Lords, and as the
King was not quite prepared to march upon London he con-
sented to the Bill, in order to gain time. It would make little
difference when he re-entered the capital in triumph,
ciuld easily reverse it then. The House of Commons then
asked the King to let the militia be under the command o^
ocl/Pfl Trie, rv Jilt; LVJ let Lilt, limiiia — r
officers appointed by Parliament. (The miIi “ a , w “ “ toMiers
men who left their ordinary occupations and became so
when called upon to do sa) The Ktng had summoned ffiem
and refused to give up the command. Parliament the
THE LONG PARLIAMENT 159
the King the Nineteen Propositions, which consisted of the
conditions upon which it was willing to let him rule in
future. If he accepted them his power would be wholly
lost, and he would be King only in name. He refused. No
further communication took place between the two sides, and
war began.
CHAPTER XXXI
J
THE GREAT REBELLION
It is certain that when fighting began in 1642 nobody on
either side expected it to last for four years. The King had left
London with the intention of returning very soon with an
• army at his back, so that he might dissolve Parliament, punish
its leaders, and resume his former way of ruling. Parliament
probably hoped to defend itself long enough to make terms.
The King directed his loyal subjects to meet him at
Nottingham, and there was a ready response to his summons.
Most of the Lords and nearly half the Commons chose to fight
for him, so that the numbers of members in both Houses of
Parliament were very much reduced. Country gentlemen and
their servants took up arms in the royal cause. All zealous
supporters of the Church of England sided with the King, and
he was soon in command of a substantial force.
The strength of Parliament lay in London and the con-
siderable towns of the south-east, which was then the most
thickly-populated part of the country. The merchant class,
which was mainly Puritan, stood solid for Parliament. Many
people of the lower class in the towns joined, or were pressed,
into the ranks of the parliamentary army, which was placed
under the command of the Earl of Essex.
Charles began his march on the capital. Essex met him at
Edgehill, but was unable to prevent his continued progress,
and he went on to Brentford, in Middlesex, almost within
sight of London. There he stopped. Londoners poured out
and threw up earthworks at Turnham Green. The King's
fatal indecision of character showed itself. Had he attacked
he might have entered London in triumph, and the subsequent
history of England might have been entirely changed. A
firm adviser by his side might have induced him to attack.
But his one competent adviser had now been dead for more
than a year. Charles decided to retire to Oxford and spend
the winter there. He never had so good a chance again. He
160
THE GREAT REBELLION 161
had failed to recognise his supreme opportunity and to take
advantage of it.
Both sides enlarged their forces during the winter, and in
1643 the King planned a threefold attack upon London. The
Earl of Newcastle was to march from the north and Sir Ralph
Hopton from the south-west, while Charles advanced from
Oxford. But neither Hopton nor the Earl could make headway
against the forces opposed to them, and Charles was forced
to postpone his attack. Meanwhile, he besieged the parlia-
mentary stronghold of Gloucester, which, however, was
relieved by a force from London. Earlier in the year John
Hampden had been mortally wounded in a skirmish at Chal-
grove Field, where the King's nephew, Rupert, won a useful
victory. The year drew to a close with no great advantage
gained by either side.
Royalists and Puritans now realised that the conflict was
to be a more serious and prolonged affair than had at first
seemed likely, and more energetic preparations were made
during the winter of 1643-4 for its renewal in the following
spring. A parliamentary leader, Oliver Cromwell, surveyed
the position, and came to the conclusion that, as things were,
the King was likely to win, because of the superior quality of
his troops. They consisted of gentlemen, men of honour,
who would fight to the uttermost, who would die rather than
admit defeat. The parliamentary armies were filled with men
of inferior quality, with no backbone, men who could not
be relied on. Cromwell held that it was necessary to form an
army of men of spirit equal to that of the Cavaliers. He deter-
mined to raise a body of cavalry consisting of men of religion,
sturdy Puritans, who would fight as long and as sternly for
their faith as their opponents would for their King. He
established the Ironsides, a body of Puritan cavalry, which
recruited only men of sterling character. The sternest training
and discipline were introduced, and the ordinary occupations
r drinking, swearing, and roystering, were
forbidden. 44 They are a lovely lot," wrote Cromwell. "Not
a man swears but he pays his twelve pence."
The parliamentary leaders had for some time been negotiating
with the Presbyterian Scots for their help in the conflict. The
Scots had so far been mere onlookers at the fight, though their
sympathies were, for religious reasons, against the King. But
they would not go so far as to fight against him unless his
162
THE STUART PERIOD
enemies would undertake to make the Church of England like
that of Scotland, by abolishing bishops and establishing
Presbyterianism. Though the King's opponents were Puritan,
they were not all prepared to do this, but they would not get
Scottish help unless they overcame their reluctance. Accord-
ingly, in December, 1643, the Solemn Teague and Covenant
was agreed upon between the Scots and the Parliament.
England was to become Presbyterian, and a Scottish army of
twenty thousand men was to take the field against the Kin g,
and its cost was to be paid by the English.
The King had negotiated with the Irish during the winter.
Much fighting, mentioned in another chapter, had occurred
among them since 1641, and Charles obtained the promise of
an army of ten thousand men. His new allies were of little
use to him, for they were defeated and captured early in 1644,
and some of them enlisted in the parliamentary army. But
the greatest events of the year occurred in Yorkshire, where
Fairfax, Cromwell, and the Scots besieged Newcasde in York.
On the advance of Rupert the siege was raised, and he was
able to join forces with Newcastle. Puritans and Cavaliers
met at the Battle of Marston Moor, where the value of the
new parliamentary arrangements became evident. The Scots
rendered good service, but the honours of the day were carried
off by the Ironsides, under Cromwell. Rupert's army was
scattered, and York and the north of England were lost. Only
in the west and south-west did the King hold his ground
during the year.
Archbishop Laud, who had been a prisoner in the Tower
since the meeting of Parliament in 1640, was beheaded for
“treason" early in 1645. He had been formally impeached,
but was now condemned by attainder. No possible excuse
can be offered for the action of his enemies in putting him to
death. He has been regarded as a martyr for the Church
of England. .
During the winter the Cromwellian system of recruiting
men of religion was applied to the whole parliamentary army,
known henceforth as the New Model Army, of which the
Ironsides became the cavalry branch. Moreover, it had tor
some time been felt that the success of the parliamentary
armies had been lessened by incompetent leadership, bariy
. in 1645 Parliament passed a Self-Denying Ordinance, by
which members of either House of Parliament had to give up
&
S^OuNBAQ
GLASGOW •
EOinEoRGH \
BE/lwiCK
PHIU
*><
.'X
/ V.
*
CARLISLE
WCASTLE
Durham
o
c>
*****
PRESTON
• w/GAn
WARRING TON
N,
• RCHYTON
NEWA*
NOTTINGHAM*
WORCESTER
9 NAS IS]
tDGEHJi
* NEWMARKET
Gloucester
COLCHESTER*
y^* Ox FORD y
c'CHALGROve F.ElD so
wwsurt JXW»
ROUNDS AY
DOWN
^ HAAtrroX
<£ rot/^r
MAiOSTONE
Plymouth
HURST CASTLi
Places of Importance in the Great Rebellion
THE STUART PERIOD
164
their military commands. Fairfax was appointed General of
the New Model Army, with Cromwell as his second-in-
command, although the latter was a member of the House
of Commons.
The campaign of 1645 was decisive. Although fighting
took place in various parts of the country, the one great battle
of the year was fought at_ Naseby. The New Model did its
work well. Charles was utterly defeated and left even his
baggage in his opponents' hands. The issue of the war was
decided. The King tried to march to Scotland, but a further
defeat prevented this. In the following year all remaining
places, including Oxford, surrendered to the parliamentary
forces. The war was over. The King might fall into the
hands of the Puritans at any time. He anticipated capture by
riding into the Scottish camp at Newark.
The entry of the Scots into England in 1644 had stimulated
the Royalist party in Scotland to rise under Montrose against
the Presbyterian nobles who had really ruled the country
since the King’s visit in 1641. For some time Montrose met
with success, and Charles, after his defeat at Naseby m 1645,
thought of joining his faithful follower in Scotland. Montrose
was, however, defeated at Philiphaugh in 1645, so that even
this resource was lost to the King.
The Royalist failure was due to several circumstances, in
the beginning both sides suffered from indifferent leadership.
It is not remarkable that a country which possessed no standing
army and consequently no professional g e ? era .k’ ™ hie
had had no important war for a long time, should not pr
good leaders at once. On the Royalist side the Earl of New
castle, Sir Ralph Hopton, and Prince Rupert proved to^be
second-rate commanders. Rupert was the King P h
the son of the unlucky Elector Palatine. On . more tl* «
occasion he drove a section of enemy forces hm lhefuMJ
the vigour of his cavalry charge. He Pntsued and returm ^
to find the battle lost in his absence. The King was
commander-in-chief, and failed to realise and grasp at h£ ^
real chance of success in 1642. On the P 3 ^* 13 m ller the
Earls of Essex and Manchester and Si. f a ” Jv replaced
leaders of the early part of the war, w . an d genius
by Fairfax and Cromwell, through whose vigour an g
V1C Sym 3 the C war e p d art of the navy seceded to the parliamentary
THE GREAT REBELLION 165
side. It was able to keep the lower Thames open and the trade
of London went on without interruption. A loyal navy might
have blockaded London, and as this was the parliamentary
headquarters such an event might have brought about a
different ending to the struggle.
Outside assistance was rendered to both sides. The King
secured the help of Irish troops for a time, and negotiated with
France, but no material advantage followed. On the other
hand the Scottish army was a very serious factor in favour of
Parliament.
At the beginning the spirit and quality of the Cavaliers made
them superior to their opponents, but the formation of the
New Model Army more than counterbalanced this, and it
cannot be doubted that the King's final defeat was due to the
efficiency of this remarkable body of men.
CHAPTER XXXII
THE CAPTIVITY AND DEATH OF CHARLES I
Nobody in 1646, least of all King Charles, thought that his
defeat involved the loss of his throne. He was still the King,
and assumed that with the restoration of order he would rule
once more, not, indeed, as an absolute monarch, but on such
terms as the victors would offer him. He knew, moreover,
that his enemies were not really united, that between Scots and
English there was very little sympathy, and that there were
divisions of opinion within the English Parliament. He
thought that it might be possible, by playing off one section
against another, to obtain very good terms.
In deciding to surrender to the Scottish army instead of to
the New Model, Charles was making the first move in this
new game. He rode into the Scottish camp at Newark not
as an enemy come to surrender himself but as King. He hoped
that the Scots would restore him to the throne. He was a
Scot, born in Scotland, the descendant of a line of Scottish
kings. Surely a Scottish army would not hand a Scottish King
over to their traditional enemies, the English! This appeal
to racial enmity was not so successful as he hoped it might
be. Parliament and the Scots agreed in demanding of him
that he should abolish bishops, establish Presbyterianism, and
take the Covenant. Charles, however, was a convinced
Churchman, and thought that by waiting he would get better
terms from the English Puritans. Upon his refusal the Scots
gave him up to parliamentary commissioners, receiving in
return their arrears of pay under the Solemn League and
Covenant, amounting to £400,000. They thereupon returned
home, while the King was lodged at Holmby House, in
Northamptonshire. . ,■
Dissensions now appeared in the victorious Parliament.
All the remaining members were Puritan, but of these “J c
majority were Presbyterian and a smaller number were inde-
pendent. The chief difference between the two groups was
F 166
CAPTIVITY AND DEATH OF CHARLES I 167
that the Presbyterians hoped to set up a Presbyterian church
in England by removing the bishops, as had been done in
Scotland, without tolerating any other sect, even of Puritans,
while the Independents, who also were against a church ruled
by bishops, were willing to extend toleration to any group of
Puritans, whether Independent, Anabaptist, or Presbyterian.
Cromwell and Fairfax were Independents, and they had
recruited the New Model Army on an Independent basis.
Now that the war was over the Presbyterian Parliament
wanted to disband the Independent army. It was resolved to
give the men one-sixth of their arrears of pay and to dismiss
them to their homes. The soldiers, however, were little
likely to be satisfied with such a settlement, especially as their
comrades-in-arms, the Scots, had received their full pay.
But the Scots with the King in their possession had been in a
position to bargain. If their request for a full settlement
had been ignored they might have put the King on the throne
again. The army felt that it would be in a better position to
enforce its demands if it had control of the King’s person.
Cornet Joyce, with a body of Ironsides, rode to Holmby House,
took charge of the King, and removed him to Newmarket,
whence, shortly afterwards, he was transferred to Hampton
Court. Parliament was dismayed, and some of the Pres-
byterian members, in fear of the army, even fled to the
continent.
An Army Council had been formed, and this body now
offered to the King terms, known as the Heads of the Proposals,
on which it was willing to restore him to the throne. Charles
was by no means displeased with the way things were moving.
The more his enemies fell out the better the terms he would
obtain. The Heads of the Proposals were very reasonable
terms, better far than were the Nineteen Propositions which
had been offered him before the rebellion began. Thinking
that still better conditions might be obtained if he allowed
the quarrel between army and Parliament to develop a little
farther, Charles held out. This was a great mistake. He
failed to understand the character of the men with whom he
had to deal. They had made him a fair offer and were not
likely to improve on it, or even to renew it.
He made a further blunder. Thinking that he would be in
a better position to negotiate if he were free, and believing that
Colonel Hammond, the Governor of Carisbrooke Castle, would
1 68
THE STUART PERIOD
befriend him, he left Hampton Court, where he had not been
in close captivity, and went to Carisbrooke. Hammond,
however, would not support him, and by his move the King
had merely exchanged one prison for another, in addition to
arousing the suspicion of the soldiers that he was not to
be trusted.
From Carisbrooke he entered into negotiations with the
Scots once more, offering them a limited recognition of Presby-
terianism. On this basis a treaty called the Engagement was
drawn up. A Royalist rising against the Puritans was to break
out in England, and a Scottish army pledged to restore the
King was to march south. In return, Charles undertook to
establish Presbyterianism in England for three years. No
doubt he thought that in three years' time he would be able to
restore the bishops, while the Scots thought that if England
once received the blessings of Presbyterianism the bishops
would be gone for ever.
The Second Civil War began and ended in 1648. The
Royalists rose in Kent, but were defeated by Fairfax at Maid-
stone. They retreated into Essex and seized Colchester,
which had been on the side of Parliament hitherto. Fairfax
followed them and besieged them in Colchester, which after
an obstinate resistance fell into his hands. The rising in the
south-east was over. Meanwhile, the Scots invaded England
for the third time in eight years, but were met by Cromwell
in Lancashire. He defeated them at Preston, at Wigan, and
at Warrington, and drove them in disorder into their own
country. The Second Civil War was over.
The New Model had done its work swiftly and completely,
but the men were bitter. Many of their comrades had died
in the recent fighting, and their thoughts turned towards the
man who had brought about this renewed bloodshed. They
had offered him fair terms for the recovery of his position.
He had chosen to reject them and to stir up strife, and they
felt that. King though he was, he must be made to suffer tor
his misdeed. There was no idea of punishing him tor ms
resistance to them in the first war. But they regarded the
second war as unnecessary, and the man who had caused 11
was to them a man of blood. „ ,
But if the King was to be brought to trial it must be oy
authority of Parliament, and it was certain that the
majority in Parliament would not condemn him tor trying
CAPTIVITY AND DEATH OF CHARLES I 169
to establish Presbyterianism in England. The soldiers,
therefore, determined to expel the Presbyterian majority, and
one day in December, 1648, Colonel Pride with his regiment
took up his position at the entrance to the House of Commons.
As members arrived the Independents were permitted to enter,
but the Presbyterians were turned aside into a room until a
large number were assembled. Pride ordered them to go and
not return, and in fear of the soldiers they obeyed.
The much-reduced Parliament, which was now a mere
fragment of the Long Parliament which met in 1640, appointed
a High Court of Justice to try the King. One hundred and
thirty persons were named to serve as judges, under the
presidency of a lawyer, John Bradshaw. The King, who a
short while earlier had been removed from Carisbrooke Castle
to Hurst Castle on the Solent, where he had for the first time
been kept in strict confinement, was brought to London. The
court met in Westminster Hall, and he was brought before it.
He at once denied the right of his judges to try him, on the
ground that they had not been appointed by a Parliament,
but by a mere fragment of Parliament. The objection being
overruled, the King took no further part in the proceedings,
lest by defending himself he should be thought to admit the
right of the court to try him. Only one end was possible.
It is difficult to believe that his enemies intended to give him
a fair trial, with a possibility of acquittal. He was sentenced
to be beheaded on 30th January, 1649, outside his palace of
Whitehall. - >
The Queen and the Prince of Wales were abroad, and made
such efforts as were possible to save the King’s life. The
Prince sent to the Parliament a sheet of paper containing only
his signature, so that on it could be written absolutely any
terms on which his father's life might be spared. But nothing
could move the iron resolution of the soldiers. Before his
death Charles took an affecting leave of his two youngest
children, the Duke of Gloucester and the Princess Henrietta.
He reminded the Duke, a child of eight years, of the sacredness
of hereditary succession " They will try to make thee King.
But mark, child, what I do say. Mark well what I do say.
Thou must not be King while thy brothers Charles and James
do live The boy promised, to his father’s great satisfaction.
Charles passed to his death with courage and dignity. On
the morning of the execution an enormous crowd assembled.
170
THE STUART PERIOD
but a sufficient force of troops prevented all thought of rescue.
The King was accompanied by his friend, Juxon, Bishop of
London, on his walk to the scaffold. He made a brief speech
to the people, and after a few minutes spent in prayer he was
beheaded.
By his followers Charles was regarded as a martyr, and this
view is maintained by many people to-day. They contend
that he died for his faith, and that if he had been willing to
sacrifice the Church of England by yielding to Puritan demands
he might have saved his life and crown. While this may be
true of the early days of his captivity it cannot be forgotten
that by the Engagement with the Scots he did agree to sacrifice
the Church of England and to establish Presbyterianism.
But the attempt failed, and it is impossible to hold that Charles
was a martyr to his loyalty to the Church.
It would be useless to discuss the justice of the sentence.
Opinions are still sharply divided upon this, and they depend
upon the view taken of Charles's acts during his reign. But
there cannot be any doubt as to the unwisdom of the course
taken by the Puritans. The King's death turned public
opinion decisively against them and in favour of the royal
cause. It did not even deprive the Royalists of their leader,
for they naturally regarded the Prince of Wales, who was at
liberty and abroad, as King Charles II. England was to be
a Puritan republic for the next eleven years, but it always
rested on the support of the army, never on that of public
opinion, and at the first opportunity the monarchy was
restored. From the day of the King’s execution the rule ol
the Puritans was doomed to failure.
CHAPTER XXXIII
OPPOSITION TO THE COMMONWEALTH
The struggle between Crown and Parliament which had been
developing since the beginning of the Stuart period had
culminated in the defeat of the Crown and the bringing of the
King to the scaffold. But in achieving its victory Parliament
itself had very nearly been destroyed. The small group of
men which still called itself Parliament hardly deserved the
title. A full Parliament consists of King, Lords, and Commons.
The King was no more, and the Lords had ceased to meet. Of
the Commons, the Royalist members had left in 1642 and the
Presbyterians had been expelled in 1648. Only a little group
of between fifty and sixty Independent members was left.
This, though people contemptuously called it the Rump, con-
tinued to meet, and for a time it controlled the Government.
Meeting shortly after the death of Charles I, it formally
abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords, declared
England to be a Commonwealth and a Free State, and appointed
a Council of State of forty-one members. As many of these
were members of the Rump, it is evident that the Council of
State was merely the Rump under another name.
These arrangements were not regarded by anybody as final.
The leading Puritan members themselves hoped to establish
a Puritan republic similar to that of the Dutch. The army
too, was not satisfied with this as the permanent form of
government of the country, and might at any time remove it
and establish something else. But for the time being the army
had other work to do.
The infant Commonwealth had no friends. Ireland was in
re ™ t ’ Sco ! land prepared to recognise Charles II as its King,
"’ h ‘ c e R°yaUsts m England Were mere ‘y waiting an opportunity
to rise. Abroad, Prince Rupert with the remnant of the Royalist
naty hamed Ermsh shipping until his squadron was destroyed
recnl h T?- admiral - Bk > k e. No foreign power would
recognise the Commonwealth, and there was a chance that
171
172
THE STUART PERIOD
more than one foreign country would fight it. Against this
array of enemies stood the army, within whose ranks disaffection
was appearing.
A Puritan group known as the Levellers, who believed that
all men should be “Level" or equal, revolted against the
army leaders. An army is not the place for such opinions.
If all men were equal, ranks in the army would be abolished,
and discipline would cease. But it is discipline which dis-
tinguishes an army from a mob. Cromwell saw this clearly.
Three regiments mutinied, and Cromwell with loyal troops
marched to their camp at Bulford. He surprised them and
forced them to surrender. A few men were shot, the rest were
pardoned, and the mutiny was over. Cromwell had not merely
overcome the mutineers, but he had disproved their doctrine
that all men were equal by asserting his mastery over them.
Events in Ireland now called for his attention. A Royalist
army had been raised by James Butler, Marquis of Ormond, who
had placed garrisons in the Irish east coast towns. Cromwell
determined to cross to Ireland with a section of the army.
But he had no money and no transports. Money, however,
was borrowed in the City of London, and the lenders were
promised compensation out of conquered Irish lands. It
seemed a mere gamble, and for some time it was doubtful it
the expedition would set out at all. It did so, however, an
Cromwell landed near Drogheda. He summoned the town to
surrender. It refused, and he took it by storm and put the
garrison to the sword. He repeated this terrible achievement
at Wexford. Some further fighting occurred; other towns
surrendered, and the rising was crushed. Many pr*° ner *
were sold into slavery in the West Indies. The lands of the
Royalists were confiscated, some being given to the creditors
of the Government in London and some to veteran Puritan
soldiers who settled in Ireland and formed a permanent Enghsn
garrison there. Cromwell returned to London, leaving his
son-in-law, Ireton, in Ireland as its Governor.
Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Scotlanch The J
terian Scots had fought against Charles I “
but as the result of the Engagement they had come over to
side in the Second Civil War, and were now to . be reckoneo
as enemies of the English Puritans who had so recently , defeate
them. They would certainly recognise Charles II as Ki g
he would honour his father's Engagement and become
3
The Establishment of the Commonwealth
174
THE STUART PERIOD
Presbyterian. But there was also a definitely Royalist party
in Scotland, which had fought under Montrose for the late
King, and they, too, looked upon Charles II as their King, and
were prepared to recognise him without conditions. Charles,
therefore, had good prospect of obtaining at least his northern
crown, since both the opposing parties wished to recognise him.
Barely twenty years of age, Charles II was far abler than
his father, and far less scrupulous. He preferred to owe his
crown to the Royalists rather than to the Presbyterians, and
before committing himself to the latter he awaited the result
of a rising led by Montrose against Argyll's Presbyterian
Government. The rising failed, and Montrose was captured
and put to death in brutal manner. The affair endangered
Charles’s prospects, for, if the Presbyterians felt that Montrose
had been commissioned by the young King to rise against them,
they would have nothing more to do with him. But Charles
declared, truly or not, that Montrose had acted without his
knowledge or permission. He accepted the Covenant, was
acclaimed King by the Scots, and was crowned at Scone.
The Puritans in England could not possibly allow such a
settlement to remain in Scotland, for Charles would merely
await an opportunity of attacking them. Sooner or later,
when England was engaged in a continental war, Charles would
march south with a Scottish army and would try to recover his
southern kingdom. His presence in Scotland was a standing
danger to the Commonwealth, and war with the Scots was
necessary. Fairfax, however, refused to attack the Scots,
who had in time past been brothers in arms to the English
Puritans, and resigned his command, which devolved upon
Cromwell. Marching into Scotland, Cromwell met a Scottisn
army under Leslie at Dunbar. The Scots occupied a strong
position on the heights, with Cromwell's troops between them
and the sea. The English army was short of supplies, and
appeared to have the choice between starving and attackin
uphill. To their amazement and delight the Scots abandoned
their strong position and came down to level ground, where
Ihey were utterly defeated by the New Model Cromwell
marched north to meet Charles, but the King hoped to recover
everything by a bold stroke. He eluded Cromwelland
marched into England by the western route. H e expert^
that thousands of Englishmen would flock to his « a “ d ? r ‘‘ “
that in the absence of a large part of the New Model Army
OPPOSITION TO THE COMMONWEALTH 175
he would recover his throne. But the English held back, and
Cromwell hastened by the eastern route to overtake him.
They met at Worcester, where the Scots were again completely
beaten. The King became a fugitive and after various adven-
tures escaped to France. The Presbyterian Government of
Argyll in Scotland was overthrown. Scotland was joined to
England, becoming part of the Commonwealth, and Monk,
a general of the New Model Army, was made its Governor.
The Scots bitterly hated this connection, but during the nine
years of its duration they prospered exceedingly by being
allowed to trade freely with England and English colonies, and
they were permitted full liberty to follow the Presbyterian
religion.
In less than three years from the death of Charles I the
British Isles had been completely subjugated by the Puritan
army. But enemies remained abroad. Possibly the Common-
wealth would not have been left unattacked so long as this
had not the leading European powers been fighting among
themselves. The Thirty Years War had ended in 1648,
leaving the countries concerned terribly exhausted, but France
and Spain continued their war until 1659. France, moreover,
was for some years prevented from doing much by a series of
internal disturbances known as the Fronde. The one power
that was in a position to attack the Commonwealth was Holland.
The Dutch were Puritan, and it might be thought that they
would be more likely to support than to oppose the Puritans in
England. This, however, was not the case. Their commercial
rivalry outweighed their religious sympathy.
The Dutch had fought for their independence against Spain
from 1572 and 1609, and they had received much help from
England in various ways. But during the seventeenth century
. c y became bitterly opposed to the English in connection
wnh the Eastern trade. Both countries had established East
India Companies, and the Dutch Company did its best to
eject the English Company from the Indian Ocean. An
English settlement at Amboyna, in the Spice Islands, was
captured by the Dutch in 1623, and several English merchants
were murdered by the victors, who inflicted horrible tortures on
some of diem. The news of this outrage caused great indigna-
tion in England. James I, however, was hoping for Dutch
support for the Elector Palatine, and did nothing against the
republic. Charles I had neither opportunity nor inclination
176 THE STUART PERIOD
to avenge the outrage, which in the time of the Common-
wealth still remained unrequited, though by no means
forgotten.
Dutch shipping in the seventeenth century was to be found
in every part of the world, and much freight was carried in
Dutch vessels for other countries. To the Puritans this
seemed to be a great danger to this country, and in 1651 the
Rump passed a Navigation Act for the encouragement of
English shipping. It provided that goods coming from Asia,
Africa, or America to England were to be carried in English
ships only, and that goods from a European country were to
come either in English ships or in those of the country which
exported the goods. The Act was evidently intended to
strike a blow at Dutch commercial prosperity; it succeeded in
arousing Dutch indignation.
Other matters helped to bring on war between the two
countries. Holland was nominally a republic, but its
“president" was called a Stadtholder, and this position was
hereditary in the House of Orange. Really, therefore, Holland
was a monarchy, although the title of King was not used.
The Stadtholderate was abolished at the death of William II
in 1650, but the wealthy burghers who formed the new Govern-
ment of Holland were as much opposed to England as the
Stadtholder had been. The Stadtholder William II had
married Charles I's daughter Mary, and Charles II for a
time went to live in his brother-in-law's dominions, a circum-
stance none too pleasing to English Puritans. But the climax
was reached with the murder at The Hague of Dr. Dorislaus,
the Commonwealth ambassador to Holland.
War broke out in 1652. It consisted entirely of naval
engagements in the narrow seas. A Somersetshire squire
named Blake, who had been a colonel in the New Model Army,
commanded the English fleet, and proved that the Puritan
qualities of determination and strength were as effective on
sea as on land. Van Tromp, the Dutch admiral, was a good
seaman and a worthy fighter, and in a series of battles the
broom and the whip opposed each other. But in the last
fight, off the Texel, Van Tromp was slain, and the Dutch were
glad to make peace. By the Treaty of Westminster, 1654,
the Dutch recognised the Navigation Act and agreed to pay
compensation to the relatives of the men slam at Amboyna.
The Commonwealth at last enjoyed peace. It had subdued
OPPOSITION TO THE COMMONWEALTH 177
its enemies everywhere, by land and by sea. Despite its
bloody origin it had some claim to English respect in that it
had avenged a wrong of thirty years' standing, which Stuart
Kings could not, or would not, do. And the rulers of Europe
were made aware of the existence of a new power with which
it would be better to be friendly than otherwise.
CHAPTER XXXIV
THE ORGANISATION OF PURITAN RULE
As was stated in the last chapter, the Rump, which with the
army had brought about the trial and death of Charles I,
continued to act as the Parliament of the Commonwealth for
the next four years, while the actual government was entrusted
to a Council of State. The monarchy and the House of Lords
no longer existed. This, however, was only a temporary
arrangement, satisfactory to the members of the Rump, but
not to the soldiers. While the latter were engaged in over-
coming the enemies of the Commonwealth they had no tmie
to consider the organisation of its government, but as time
passed and it became increasingly evident that no power at
home or abroad could stand against the New Model, the problem
of settling the constitution came to the front.
Members of the Rump desired no change, but as they knew
that the existing state of affairs did not satisfy the army t ey
thought it advisable in their own interests to propose a change.
They drew up a “ Reform Bill," by which a new Parliament
was to be elected. All the existing members would be entitled
to sit in the new Parliament without offering themselves to
their constituencies for re-election, and they would form a
committee to consider the fitness or otherwiseofthenewy
elected members to take their seats. Thus,) * ** y
should return a number of Royalists, or even of Presbyt ^
the existing Rump would declare their election void, for the
only “e who m their eyes would be fit to sit would be
Independents like themselves. If this re f° ri J s ,
carried out, the resulting Parliament would be mer y
enlarged Rump. The existing group must have had little
confidence that the country approved their P r ° ce ,!^ * enC e
however, they hoped to hoodwink the army by such a pretence
of reform they were to be undeceived
Cromwell, who was a member of the Hump, was &
these prowls, and an understanding was reached that the
170 ^
THE ORGANISATION OF PURITAN RULE 179
matter should be suspended. In his absence, however, dis-
cussion was continued, and, hearing of this, he went to the
House with a body of troops. Leaving the men outside he
entered and took his seat. Presently he rose, and rebuked
the members for their deceitfulness in continuing the debate
after they had agreed not to do so. He stamped his foot and
the soldiers entered the House. Raising his voice he ordered
the members to depart, which, in view of the presence of
armed men, they were compelled to do. The House was
cleared, the mace was removed from the table, and Cromwell
locked the door and put the key in his pocket. So the Rump
came to an end. The next day the Council of State was
dissolved, and no regular form of government existed any
longer in the country.
With the disappearance of all organised government the rule
of the country and the maintenance of order devolved upon
the strongest power in the land. This was the army, and
Cromwell, as its General, necessarily undertook the work of
government. He had no right to do so, yet was compelled to
it, since nobody else could do it. But he did not wish to rule
as a military despot for a day longer than was necessary. He
had expelled the Rump merely as a necessary preliminary to
the establishment of a more satisfactory form of government.
Meanwhile, his power rested only on the army. The soldiers
were true to him and supported him, but he did not wish to
strain their loyalty by refusing to set up a proper form of
government.
Opinion was divided among the Puritans as to what the new
form of government should be. Some strange and fanatical
sects existed, and among them was a group known as the
Fifth Monarchy Men. They held that the history of the world
had passed, in the main, under four great monarchies, the
Assyrian, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman. After
the passing away of the fourth monarchy a fifth was to be
established. This fifth monarchy was to be the kingdom of
Christ upon earth, ruled by Christ himself, who was to appear
in person. Until his actual advent, which could not be long
delayed, government must be carried on in his name by his
saints. To the Puritan it seemed that recent events indicated
the passing of the fourth monarchy. That form of govern-
ment had ceased m England, it seemed to be in danger from the
Fronde in France, while the Holy Roman Empire had been
i8o
THE STUART PERIOD
settled in its final form in 1648 by the Peace of Westphalia,
by which the princes of the Empire became fully independent,
and the Emperor's authority over them practically ended.
The idea of the rule of the saints did not meet with entire
Puritan approval, but Cromwell was attracted by it, and pro-
ceeded to act upon it. He ordered that in all parts of the
country Puritan ministers should prepare lists of “godly men"
and forward them to him. From these lists he selected one
hundred and forty men, and directed them to appear at
Westminster. The assembly so formed has been called,
derisively, the Little Parliament, or the Barebones Parliament.
(One of its members was named Praise- God Barebones.)
But it does not seem that Cromwell regarded it as a Parliament
at all. He looked upon it as a council of godly men to whom
was to be entrusted the duty of drawing up a constitution for
the country.
If the Little Parliament appeared ridiculous in its composi-
tion it seemed no less so in some of its actions. To attempt to
incorporate parts of the Mosaic law, which was drawn up for
an Eastern people in a different stage of civilisation, living under
different geographical and climatic conditions, into the law of
England was absurd. But its appointment of a committee, of
which no member was a lawyer, to simplify the laws of England,
seemed absurd only to lawyers. If laws were sufficiently
simplified, the lawyer's occupation would be gone. And its
proposal to establish county courts for the settlement of less
important actions at law was so far from being absurd that it
was carried into effect two centuries later. But Cromwell
watched the assembly with growing disappointment. Its
work was to form a constitution, and it was doing nothing
towards that end. He persuaded a group of its members to
meet early one morning, and, in the name of the whole body,
to resign their authority into his hands, whereupon he dismissed
The failure of this council of “godly men" to produce a
constitution compelled Cromwell to look in another direction,
and he turned to a council of practical men, consisting o
officers of the army. They were more successf ul their
efforts, and drew up a document of great interest, known
the Instrument of Government, m which was set out he
constitution under which the country was to be ruled for th
next few years. It provided that:
THE ORGANISATION OF PURITAN RULE 181
(1) The Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland
was to become a Protectorate, ruled by a Lord Protector.
(2) Oliver Cromwell was to be the first Lord Protector.
(3) The Protector was to be assisted by a Council of State
of fifteen members.
(4) A Parliament of 460 members, of whom 400 were to
represent England, 30 Scotland, and 30 Ireland, was to meet.
(A list of constituencies was drawn up.) No greater interval
than three years was to elapse without a meeting of Parliament,
and, once assembled, it was not to be dissolved by the
Protector in less than five months.
(5) Every person who possessed property worth £200 was
to have a vote in the elections of members, unless he was a
Papist or a Malignant. (A Malignant was a person who had
fought for the King in the late wars.) Malignants were to be
debarred from voting for the first nine years.
(6) Parliament alone was to make laws and to levy taxes,
but it was not to make any law which was contrary to the
Instrument.
(7) The Protector was not to have a veto over Acts of
Parliament.
(8) Parliament was to grant the Protector a revenue for the
carrying on of the government.
(9) The Protector might issue ordinances which would have
the force of law, unless they were disallowed by Parliament
when it met.
(10) Freedom of religion was granted to all except Papists
and Prelatists (i.e. Churchmen).
It may be noticed that, in general, the Instrument provided
a form of government not unlike the monarchy, with a Lord
Protector in place of the King. The Lord Protector was to rule
the country, but he could not continue to govern for a lengthy
period of time without calling a Parliament, and he couid & not
comply with the law merely by calling it and dissolving it
forthwith. In some respects the new constitution marked a
definite advance on the old system, since the electorate was
revised, and parliamentary seats were redistributed. The
union of the whole of the British Isles which was effected by
the Instrument did not come to pass under the restored
monarchy until the beginning of the nineteenth century. But
the freedom of religion which was proclaimed was such only
1 82
THE STUART PERIOD
in name. If Papists and Prelatists were to be excluded from it,
only Puritans would remain, and, in fact, the only toleration
granted to Christians during the Protectorate was to the
Puritans. It is interesting to observe, however, that Jews were
permitted to settle in the country under this arrangement.
Jews had been expelled from England in 1290 by Edward I, and
after three centuries and a half they were now readmitted.
The Instrument was by no means perfect, and some serious
criticisms must be noticed. The Protector was to be Oliver
Cromwell, who was to hold office for life. There was no
provision for removing him if he should rule tyrannically
or in any other way prove to be unworthy of the position.
No doubt the Army Council had the utmost confidence in
Cromwell, and perhaps the very possibility that he might rule
badly did not occur to them. But, if the Instrument was to
give England a permanent form of government, other Protectors
would succeed Cromwell, and it was impossible to say that no
one of them would ever prove unworthy. The same remark
applies to members of the Council of State, who also were
appointed for life and were irremovable.
But the most serious criticism of the Instrument of Govern-
ment is that the principle for which the struggle between
King and Parliament had been undertaken was left unsetded.
King and Parliament had been fighting for supremacy. It
was by no means clear in the Instrument who was supreme.
Was the Parliament? No, for it could not alter the Instrument.
But who should decide if a particular Act of Parliament was
contrary to the Instrument? Not the Protector, for he could
not veto Acts of Parliament. If the Instrument should last, at
no distant date the struggle for supremacy would break out
again. There were signs of the beginning of such a struggle
in the short Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, described in the
next chapter.
CHAPTER XXXV
THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL
Oliver Cromwell entered upon his new duties at once, and
he remained Lord Protector for the rest of his life. He had
been the ruler of the country since he expelled the Rump, and
the effect of the Instrument was to give legal form to his
position.
He turned his attention at once to the settlement of the
religious question. The Prelatists, to whom religious freedom
was denied by the Instrument, were the clergy of the Church
of England. They were forbidden to use the Book of Common
Prayer, and if they complied with this order they were per-
mitted to remain in their livings. But all Church clergy at
their institution promised to use the services in the Prayer
Book, and it must have been the least conscientious of them
who submitted. The majority refused, and some thousands
were expelled, though the work of removing them took some
time. The vacancies were filled with Puritan ministers,
Presbyterian, Independent, and Anabaptist. The mass of the
English people, however, had no great liking for Puritan ways,
and it is probable that the Prayer Book was used a good deal
in private. The feasts of the Church were no longer cele-
brated. Even Christmas was passed over without festivities.
Puritan influence was felt in other directions. Theatres were
closed (a Puritan of the time of Charles I had described them
as “devil's chapels"), such amusements as cock-fighting
and horse -racing were forbidden, and even singing, other
than the singing of psalms, was frowned upon, while old
English customs, such as the May-day celebrations, were
suppressed.
The first Protectorate Parliament met on 3rd September,
1654. Throughout its existence it was not on cordial terms
with the Protector. It attempted to limit his authority, and
he resented such efforts as being contrary to the Instrument.
183
THE STUART PERIOD
He dissolved the Parliament on 21st January, 1655, when it
had lasted exactly twenty weeks. Probably the framers of the
Instrument intended that Parliament should last five calendar
months, but Cromwell interpreted the phrase as meaning lunar
months. Perhaps, in dissolving Parliament, he for the first
time began to see things from the standpoint of Charles I.
The fact that a Royalist plot against the Protector's life was
discovered in 1655 proved that a section, probably a large
section, of the nation disliked his rule. It served to remind
him that the real basis of his power was not a mere document,
the Instrument of Government, but the army at his back. He
did not hesitate, therefore, to use the army effectively for the
purpose of keeping order and suppressing plots. He divided
the country into ten districts and placed each under the com-
mand of a major-general, who had a cavalry force at his disposal.
This body of men acted as a kind of mounted police. It
prevented the holding of meetings without permission and in
various ways kept in touch with persons who were suspected
of disloyalty. By such means Cromwell maintained a firm
hold over the country, and the discontented Royalists dared not
make a move against him. .
As already stated, France and Spain fought on opposite sides
in the latter part of the Thirty Years War, and they did not
cease hostilities when the Peace of Westphalia was made. 1 he
war between them dragged on, seemingly interminable. Botn
sides by this time realised that England with its forn Y d * b V;
Puritan army would be an exceedingly useful ally, and both
began to treat for an alliance. Cromwell had to consider
whether he would support France, a Roman Catholic c 01 ^^'
ruled at this time by a Roman Catholic Cardinal, Mawrm,
Spain, the champion of the Roman Catholic Church throughout
FuroDe It would be little to the taste of the soldiers to
support a popish country even against another popish country.
AtTength to the Spanish ambassador he suggested terms ofl
which fhe assistance of the New Model Army might be pven
sadist France. The cost of the war was to be borne by
Snain Calais was to be captured and given to the Eng •
Direct trade was to be permitted between English
mmmim
THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL 185
The Spanish ambassador replied, “You might as well ask for
my master's two eyes.”
the suggested terms were unreasonable. Surely not in the
demand that Spain should pay for the help she wanted, and
that she should hand over Calais out of the spoils of war !
Further, Englishmen had always tried to trade with Spanish
colonies since the time of John Hawkins, and had n e ver
recognised the moral right of Spain to monopolise New World
trade. And, lastly, if Englishmen were to fight and to die for
Spain, they might reasonably expect to be freed from the
horrors of the Spanish Inquisition! Yet, on the other hand,
Spain could hardly be expected to destroy her colonial and
religious systems even in order to gain the coveted alliance.
The whole negotiation shows the utter impossibility of arrang-
ing friendship between two powers so entirely opposed to
each other in every way.
Cromwell turned to France. From her he demanded that,
as the price of an alliance, she should bear the cost of the
war, that Dunkirk, in the Spanish Netherlands, should be
captured and given to England, and that the persecution of the
Vaudois by the Duke of Savoy should cease. Savoy was not
in France, but was close to it. The Vaudois were Protestant
mountaineers who were being cruelly harried by the Duke.
Their sufferings have been commemorated for all time by the
Puritan poet, John Milton, in the sonnet which begins:
Avenge, O Lord, Thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold.
Cromwell assumed, and with truth, that France could, if she
would, exert pressure upon the Duke to stop the persecution.
She did so, the persecution ceased, and the alliance was
made.
Cromwell has been blamed for choosing to support France
rather than Spain. The latter power was exhausted after
more than eighty years of almost uninterrupted warfare, and
was rapidly sinking to the rank of a third-rate power. France,
on the other hand, was increasing in strength, and under
Louis XIV was to become a serious menace to the whole of
western Europe. Long and costly wars were, in fact, carried
on under William III and Anne in order to break down the ■
swollen power of the French King, and it is contended by ,
Cromwell’s critics that he helped to build up this great power.
1 86 THE STUART PERIOD
But he could hardly have chosen otherwise. For nearly a
century Spain and England had been opposed to each other
on the religious question, Spain supporting Rome and England
the Reformation. And it was the religious question which’
appealed to Cromwell, and not only to Cromwell but to the
army also. It must not be forgotten that Cromwell's power
would not have lasted a week had the army turned against
him, which it certainly would have done if he had allied
with Spain.
For some time the fighting was only at sea. A fleet under
Penn and Venables sailed to the West Indies in 1655 and
captured Jamaica, which remains to-day the most important
British possession in that part of the world. Under Blake,
Spanish treasure ships were captured, and a Spanish fleet was
destroyed at Santa Cruz. Such achievements reminded men
of the great days of Elizabeth.
In 1658 a brigade of six thousand men crossed over to France
and joined the French army under Marshal Turenne. At the
Battle of the Dunes the New Model carried all before it,
proving its ability to overcome the veterans of Spain as surely
as it had formerly scattered the levies of Scotland and Ireland.
Dunkirk was captured and handed over to the English. These
events proved to be decisive, and Spain negotiated with France
for peace, which was concluded in 1659 by the Treaty of
the Pyrenees.
These operations had involved a good deal of expenditure,
and Cromwell had found it necessary to raise money, which
he had done without parliamentary consent. He did not dare
to do so indefinitely, however, and he called a new Parliament
to meet in 1656. This second Parliament of the Protectorate
contained a substantial element opposed to Cromwell, and the
Protector exercised a right given him in the Instrument, by
expelling more than a hundred members. The remainder,
consisting only of his supporters, was conciliated by the abolition
of the military government of the country by major-generals,
and devoted its time to the drawing up of a new constitution
known as the Humble petition and Advice. It was in the
form of an amendment to the Instrument of Government,
which, though it could not be altered by Parliament alone,
presumably could be amended by Protector and Parliament in
agreement. The Humble Petition and Advice suggested
that in future Parliament should consist of two Houses, the
THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL 187
House of Commons and the Other House, and that Cromwell
should take the title of King. If the idea had been carried
out, the old constitution would have been restored completely,
with the House of Cromwell in place of the House of Stuart.
The Protector considered the matter, but he never forgot
that his power rested on the army, and he feared that the
soldiers would not tolerate his assumption of the royal title.
King Oliver’s reign would be short. He put the idea aside,
and the Humble Petition was amended so as to leave Cromwell
Protector, but with the right of naming his successor. In
this form it was adopted.
When Parliament met again, in 1658, two Houses met. The
Other House had been filled with members appointed by the
Protector. He had hoped to secure the presence of some of
the nobles of the old House of Lords, but almost without
exception they disregarded his invitation, and he filled the new
chamber with Puritan appointments. The House of Commons,
too, was at full strength, those who had been expelled in 1656
being permitted to return. Cromwell’s opponents were now
in a majority in the House of Commons, and they criticised
not only the Protector, but also the newly-established Other
House. In despair Cromwell dissolved Parliament, saying,
as he did so, " The Lord judge between thee and me.”
The great Protector's last days were filled with gloom. In
constant peril of assassination, he never appeared in public
without wearing armour. He was conscious that his rule was
distasteful to the mass of Englishmen, and that even a con-
siderable group within the Puritan party was opposed to him.
While, with the support of the army, he could continue to rule
till his death, he could have little hope that his system would
long survive him. Stricken with illness, he was at length
confined to his room, where he was attended with loving care
by his daughter. On 3rd September, 1658, the anniversary
of his victories at Dunbar and Worcester, he died. Regarded
by some as the greatest traitor, by others as the greatest patriot,
in the history of this country, he was without doubt one of the
greatest men of his own or any other time, of this or any other
land. His enemies speak of his ambition. If this be a fault,
it was ambition for his faith and his country rather than for
himself. His military capacity was of no mean order. He
organised and maintained an army of such efficiency that it
never, under his leadership, experienced defeat. In the eyes
i88
THE STUART PERIOD
of foreign nations he raised England from the low estate in
which the Stuart Kings had left her to a position of unchallenged
power in Europe. To him, more than to any other single
man, was due the overthrow of the monarchy and the
establishment of Puritan rule, and, though he did not succeed
in making it permanent, no other man could have carried it
on as long as he did.
CHAPTER XXXVI
THE FALL OF PURITAN RULE
Richard Cromwell, Oliver’s son, became Protector after his
father’s death. He was easy-going and good-natured, and of
a religious disposition, but he was not fitted by either inclina-
tion or capacity to rule the country. His tastes were those
of a country gentleman, and he cared little for politics.
The soldiers, especially the leading officers, were from the
beginning restless under his rule. If any one of them had
been really fit to succeed the great Oliver he might easily have
deposed the new Protector and occupied his place, and in that
case the Protectorate might have continued for a few more
years. But there was no general of outstanding capacity;
there were two or three who intrigued against the Protector
and against each other, each hoping to secure in time the
supreme power.
The third Protectorate Parliament assembled in January,
1659. It resembled the Parliaments called by Oliver Cromwell
in that it included members from Scotland and Ireland, but
was unlike them in that the English members were elected
by the old constituencies, and not by those established by
the Instrument of Government. Friction soon arose between
Protector and Parliament on the one hand and the army on
the other hand. Fleetwood, one of its leaders, demanded the
appointment of General of the army. But Richard refused to
give Fleetwood higher rank than that of Lieutenant-General,
under himself as General. The quarrel developed, Parliament
was dissolved, and Richard, rather than be a puppet in the
hands of ambitious soldiers, resigned the Protectorate in May,
1659, retired into private life.
The members of the Rump who had been expelled by Oliver
Cromwell in 1653 now reassembled. They declared that the
whole Protectorate, with all its acts, was null and void, and for
some months continued their pretence of being the sovereign
power of the country. A Royalist rising was crushed during
189
THE STUART PERIOD
190
the summer of 1659 by Lambert, another army commander,
who gained some prestige in consequence. On returning to
London he expelled the Rump, which, however, was allowed
to resume its sittings before the end of the year.
George Monk, the Governor of Scotland, now decided to
march south, and entered England at the beginning of 1660.
Lambert opposed him, but his forces deserted to Monk, and
he himself fell into his rival's hands. Monk at length reached
London \yithout giving any indication of his intentions. He
was the one man who might possibly have taken upon himself
the double burden of the Protectorate and the supreme com-
mand of the army. But he ordered the Rump to receive back
the Presbyterian members who had been expelled by Colonel
Pride in 1648, so that, as far as could be, the Long Parliament
was restored. But Monk had restored it merely in order that
it might vote its own dissolution, which it did, after appointing
him General of the whole army. He then ordered the election
of a new Parliament.
The new assembly, known as the Convention, was
representative of England only, and was chosen by the old
electors in the old constituencies, the electoral arrangements
established in the Instrument of Government being entirely
disregarded. This was the first time since the election of the
Long Parliament in 1640 that the people of this country had
had the chance of expressing their opinions freely, and they
showed their minds in no uncertain way by sending to
Westminster a large majority of Royalist members. The
Convention at once began to consider the terms on which it
would open negotiations with Charles II.
Charles was watching events in England with the keenest
interest, and in April, 1660 he issued the Declaration of Breda,
so called from the little town of that name in Holland where he
was living at the time. In it he promised that, if he were
restored to the throne, he would grant a general pardon to
every one who had been concerned in the Great Rebellion,
excepting only such persons as were excepted by Parliament,
he would arrange for the payment and disbandment of the
army, he would leave the settlement of the land question to
Parliament, and he would grant “ liberty to tender consciences,
i.e. he would give religious toleration. In issuing this declara-
tion he was advised by Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, the
faithful friend who had accompanied him throughout his exile.
THE FALL OF PURITAN RULE 191
The offer of a general pardon was less generous than it appeared
to be. Hyde saw clearly that in the general enthusiasm of a
Restoration a strongly Royalist Parliament would be elected,
and that it would be eager to punish its Puritan opponents.
The leading rebels would be punished by Parliament without
any odium attaching to the King.
The Convention was at first inclined to state terms on
which Charles was to resume the throne. But Monk also
was in communication with the King, and when the Con-
vention realised that he was quite able, and perhaps willing,
to effect the Restoration without its sanction, it dropped its
conditions, and invited Charles to resume possession of the
crown. He accepted the offer, landed at Dover, and entered
London on his thirtieth birthday, 29th May, 1660, amid
widespread rejoicing.
Thus, after eleven years of Puritan rule, the ancient monarchy
was re-established. It is perhaps remarkable that the Puritan
Commonwealth did not last longer. Its rule was, on the whole,
efficient, and the land was kept in order. For the first time in
history the whole of the British Isles had been brought under
one Government. Under the Puritans, England's name was
respected and feared abroad as had rarely, perhaps never, been
the case in earlier times. The Puritans had able leaders. Yet,
in spite of all these circumstances, their rule did not last.
The chief reason for their failure is the fact that their rule
rested on too narrow a basis. They never succeeded in win-
ning the confidence of the nation as a whole. The people were
repelled by their narrowness and bigotry; a batch of vexatious
laws, which interfered with the ordinary customs and habits
of the nation, kept alive a dislike of Puritan rule which might
otherwise have died down in time. The Government was
always compelled to rely upon the support of the army, and
Englishmen were thus constantly being reminded that they
were being ruled by force. The Puritan leaders, other than
Cromwell, were self-seeking, ambitious men, who were unable
to combine for the common cause, and who allowed it to go to
ruin in their efforts to thwart one another. Above all, the
Commonwealth was fated from the beginning by the death of
Charles I, which turned the bulk of the nation against it.
If the enemies of Charles I had shown greater moderation
in victory, if they had kept him in honourable captivity for the
rest of his life and had ruled in his name, they would not have
192
THE STUART PERIOD
been so completely handicapped by the hostility of the nation.
Royalist plots there would have been, but none more serious
than actually occurred. Even if Charles had been sentenced
to perpetual exile he would have been no more able than was
his son to overthrow Puritan rule. If, further, the toleration
which was permitted to the various forms of Puritanism had
been extended to Church worship, and if there had been less
interference with popular ways, the nation would sooner or
later have acquiesced in its new Government, and it would
have been possible to conceal its military character. If,
finally, a real successor to Cromwell had emerged, his rule
might have continued indefinitely. If all these conditions
had been fulfilled, Stuart rule might never have been restored,
and the subsequent history of England would have been
entirely different.
It is easy to see the mistakes made by the Puritans, but it
should not be forgotten that they made a great experiment.
Though they failed, and failed so completely that the restora-
tion of their rule was never possible, yet they exercised a
profound influence in English history, and the monarchy that
was restored was by no means the same in character as that
which had been destroyed. It is one mark of the greatness of
Charles II that he saw this far more clearly than did other
men of his time.
CHAPTER XXXVII
THE SETTLEMENT OF AFFAIRS AFTER THE RESTORATION
Charles II upon his return was accompanied and followed
by large numbers of Royalists who had shared his exile. They
came back in high spirits and with great expectations. The
recovery of their forfeited property and the gift of appoint-
ments at court and elsewhere were among the rewards they
expected to receive for their loyalty. But to dispossess the
existing holders of land and of government appointments
would not be easy, and it soon became clear that in many
directions the settlement of affairs would require careful
thought. For some months the Convention which had invited
Charles back continued to sit, but in 1661 it was replaced by a |
properly summoned Parliament, in which the Royalist element
was so strong that it is known as the Cavalier Parliament. The
settlement was the work partly of the one body and partly of
the other.
To every Royalist the King’s reign dated from 1649 and not
from 1660, so that the year of the Restoration was his twelfth
and not his first. It followed, therefore, that everything done
during the interregnum was treated as null and void, and this
principle was extended to cover everything done by Parlia-
ment since the outbreak of the Great Rebellion in 1642 —
everything, in fact, which had not received the royal assent
was regarded as invalid. Laws passed by the Rump and the
Cromwellian Parliaments ceased to be enforced, though some
such laws, including the Navigation Act, were re-enacted early
in the new reign. But this policy of non-recognition of Puritan
acts was not followed in every way. To be strictly logical the
restored Stuart Government should have relinquished Jamaica
and Dunkirk, which had been conquered during the Protectorate,
to Spain. Needless to say, this was not done. A year or
two later Dunkirk was sold to France. Jamaica remains part
of the British Empire to this day. No attempt was made,
however, to overthrow the early work of the Long Parliament
193
194
THE STUART PERIOD
and to restore the system of Charles I. The Acts abolishing
the prerogative courts and definitely establishing parliamentary
control over taxation were allowed to stand. The only Act
of this period which was reversed was that which removed
bishops from the House of Lords. Charles I had consented
to this immediately before the outbreak of war merely to gain
time. Under his son the bishops were restored to their places
in Parliament.
Much of Charles I's trouble had been due to the insufficiency
of his income, and one of the earliest and most necessary
features of the settlement was the arrangement of an adequate
royal income. Under the Commonwealth the feudal dues
had ceased to be paid, and an excise tax upon beers and other
alcoholic liquors had been established. This arrangement was
continued under Charles II. It was decided that the proper
figure for the King's income was £1,200,000 per annum. He
was permitted to receive the revenue from the Crown lands and
to levy tunnage and poundage. The receipts from these
sources, added to that from the excise, were estimated to
produce the required sum. But the estimate was inaccurate,
and Charles obtained barely a million a year by these arrange-
ments, which are open to criticism on other grounds also.
The extinction of the feudal payments brought relief to one
class of people, the landowners; the excise which replaced
this ancient source of income fell upon aU, rich and poor alike.
It would have been juster to establish in place of the feudal
payments a general tax upon land, which would have f a h en
upon the class which had paid the dues now extinguished.
But no general land-tax was levied before the reign ot
The King's promise with regard to the New Model Army
was fulfilled. The soldiers had been drawn up at Blackheath
as Charles passed to London. They alone had refrained from
cheering him; they would not welcome him. But without
leaders they were powerless to prevent his restoration. 1 e
men received their pay and the bulk of them were discharged.
Two regiments of foot and a few troops of horse were, how-
ever, retained in the royal service. They formed a small
standine army of about five thousand men. As time went on,
and the" soldfers of this small army were replaced by ne^y-
enlisted men, the Puritan character of the force disappeared.
In addition, men were stationed at Dunkirk, and a garrison
195
AFTER THE RESTORATION
kept at Tangier, which Charles received at the time of his
marriage, for many years. These forces were under military
discipline, but it seems that there was no legal authority for
imposing punishments on men who disobeyed orders. The
King issued Articles of War, under which the army was
controlled, but actually the ordinary law applied equally to
soldiers and to civilians. The King now had the nucleus of a
force with which to crush any future rebellion. It may be
noted, also, that as a precaution against future trouble the walls
of towns throughout the country were ordered to be thrown
down, exception being made only of Oxford, which had been
conspicuously loyal to the late King.
Charles was not anxious to punish those who had opposed
his father and himself. But Hyde had reckoned quite rightly
that Parliament would prove to be more Royalist than the King.
Both the Convention and the Cavalier Parliament were eager
to prove their loyalty and to gratify their desire for revenge
by putting prominent rebels to death. The greatest of all the
rebels, Oliver Cromwell, was beyond the reach of vengeance,
but his body and those of Ireton and Bradshaw were removed
from Westminster Abbey and hanged at Tyburn. What then
happened to Cromwell's body is uncertain. It may have been
buried at the foot of the gallows. But there was a tale that,
a few days after it had been hanged, a group of horsemen,
who had been troopers in the Ironsides, removed it by night
and rode away with it to the north. Their subsequent move-
ments are not known with certainty, but it is possible that the
great Protector's body was given a last resting-place in an
unknown grave on Marston Moor.
The King tried as far as possible to restrain the passion of
his followers for vengeance. But he was reminded that out
of respect for his father's memory he must at least permit
the punishments of the murderers of Charles I. Certain
members of the court which had tried the late King were already
under arrest, and the others were called upon to surrender.
About nineteen escaped from the country. Of those who were
unwise enough to surrender, twenty-five were imprisoned for
life, and thirteen were put to death. (This last number included
two or three people who were prominent during the Common-
wealth, but who had not been among the judges of Charles I.)
It was probably due to Charles himself that his reign did
not begin with a much longer list of executions. He was
THE STUART PERIOD
196
unwilling, by shedding blood uselessly, to make the same
mistake as the Puritans, who, by beheading Charles I, had
alienated public opinion.
The land question, to which special reference had been
made in the Declaration of Breda, was complicated. The
Crown lands, and those belonging to the Church, had been
confiscated by the Commonwealth, and it was inevitable that
they should be restored. But many Cavaliers had lost lands
upon passing into exile with the King, and they confidently
expected the restoration of their property. Some of them had
fled abroad, and the Commonwealth had simply taken and
sold their lands because they were 41 Malignants.” But many
others had sold their property during the Great Rebellion in
order to aid the King. In either case, since its original loss
the property might have changed hands half a dozen times,
by legitimate sale and purchase every time. To order the
wholesale restoration of such lands would be to commit grave
injustice to the existing holders. In the end, it was enacted
that Crown and Church lands were to be restored, no matter
who held them. The confiscated Cavalier lands were to be
restored, but not those which had been sold by the King's
supporters. This settlement was made without much regard
for gratitude to the dispossessed Cavaliers, or for justice to the
existing holders.
The question of religion was not easy to settle, lhat the
Church should be restored was inevitable, but it was by no
means clear, after the King’s promise of liberty to te ™^ r
consciences, that Puritanism should be suppressed. 1 he
surviving bishops resumed their positions as a matter of course.
Juxon was appointed to Canterbury in succession to Laud,
but he was old and feeble, and the real leadership fell to Gilbert
Sheldon, Bishop of London, who at the death of Juxon in
1663 succeeded to Canterbury. Durmg the Commonwealth
most of the Church clergy had been expelled, and the ^ Pj a( *
as vicars or rectors of parish churches had been filled by
Puritan ministers (Independent, Anabaptist, or Presbyterian;.
Before proceeding to expel these men and restore the d
possessed clergy the King made an effort to btmg about a senle
ment of the differences between the Church and the Puritans-
A conference between representatives of the two sides met
at the Savoy Palace in 1661. No agreement was P 05 £i bl e,
however. The Puritans held fast to their principles, bro
197
AFTER THE RESTORATION
a worldly point of view they were unwise not to secure the
best terms possible and accept them, for if no agreement could
be reached the Churchmen were certain to have their way.
The Conference ordered the Prayer Book to be revised, but
it did not thereby become acceptable to the Puritans. In
1662 Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity and the Episcopal
Ordination Act, which ordered the Puritan ministers to be
expelled unless they would consent to be ordained by a bishop
and would promise to use the Book of Common Prayer. In
other words, they were to lose their places unless they would
go over to the other side and become priests of the Church.
Some, not many, did this, but the majority refused. The
order was to be enforced on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 24th
August, 1662, when nearly two thousand Puritan ministers
gave up their posts rather than give up their principles. The
hardships and persecution which they suffered then and after-
wards have caused their memory to be revered, and rightly so,
by English Nonconformists as that of men who on “Black
Bartholomew” gave up all for conscience' sake. In fairness,
however, it is necessary to point out that they received precisely
the same treatment as had been meted out to the clergy of the
Church under the Commonwealth.
Affairs in Scotland, political and ecclesiastical, also called
for attention. For nine years the two countries had been
united, but at the Restoration the two kingdoms were treated
as separate, though it is possible that Clarendon would have
preferred to retain the union. Charles realised that a complete
restoration of affairs as they had existed in his father's reign
would be very difficult, and the attempt might be resisted, and
might result in a renewal of strife. It was the Scottish revolt
against the Prayer Book and the bishops which had compelled
Charles I to call the Long Parliament and had led to his sub-
sequent misfortunes. Charles II, in his brief occupation of
the Scottish throne after his father’s death, had taken the
Covenant. He had no thought of being bound by it now, but
he judged it wiser not to attempt to restore the Prayer Book.
He wished the Church to be episcopal, however, and a
Rescissory Act was passed in Scotland in 1661 which abolished
all that had been done since 1633, the year in which Charles I
was crowned King of Scotland, and restored that state of affairs
which had existed in that year. The effect was that bishops
were restored but the Prayer Book was dropped. Argyll was
198 THE STUART PERIOD
arrested and put to death for “treason/' and the real govern-
ment of Scotland passed into the hands of the Archbishop of
St. Andrews, James Sharp, and the Earl of Lauderdale. The
result of the Restoration in Scotland was, therefore, that the
northern kingdom regained its independence of England,
a matter which soothed Scottish pride, but it lost the
advantages of union. Its trade suffered, as it became a foreign
country under the Navigation Acts, and it was no longer per-
mitted to trade with English colonies. And throughout the
reign the Covenanters of the west and south-west were cruelly
persecuted.
The Restoration in Ireland was accomplished peacefully,
for the mass of the people were Royalist. The land question,
however, presented difficulty. Cavaliers who had lost their
lands expected their restoration. These lands were now in
the possession of Puritan veterans who had settled in Ireland,
and Charles did not wish to dispossess these men, who, if they
lost their farms, would return to England and form a discon-
tented and possibly rebellious class, while, if they remained in
Ireland, they would necessarily be loyal to the King and help
to keep the native Irish in subjection. An Act of Settlement
was passed in 1661, which directed that the settlers should keep
their lands, and that the Cavaliers should have their estates,
or lands of equal value, restored. The obvious defect in the
Act, that there would not be enough land to satisfy everybody,
was overlooked until the work of restoration began. Ultimately
it was found necessary to modify the Act of Settlement by
passing an Act of Explanation in 1665, by which the Puritans
were compelled to give up one-third of their lands in order to
satisfy Cavalier claims. It should be added that, although the
Church of Ireland was restored, Roman Catholic worship was
not forbidden. The country settled down to its usual state
of hatred of English rule, manifested by disorder in the remoter
parts of the island.
The Restoration was thus accomplished throughout the
British Isles. The old monarchy was revived in the person
of Charles II, and it was clearly the will of the people that
this should be done. But the struggle had not been in vain,
for the old system of non-parliamentary rule practised by
Charles I was not restored. Most of the early measures of
the Long Parliament were left untouched, and Charles II under-
stood that Parliament would henceforth be an essential and
AFTER THE RESTORATION 199
regular part of the machinery of government, and that it
must be reckoned with in ruling the country. The King was
not the man to struggle against the inevitable by trying to
restore what was gone for good, when the very effort might well
cause him to lose his throne. But neither would he let all
power slip from his hands. If Parliament must exist, he
determined to use it and to control it. If it could be induced
to act as he wished, he might still secure his own ends, though
in appearance he would rule as a constitutional monarch.
For the first time in English history, members of Parliament
were regularly bribed to support the Crown. The bribes
were not always in the form of money. Titles, appointments,
honours of various kinds, would appeal to some men more
than money. Many members were awarded pensions or were
appointed to sinecure offices — posts with large salaries and no
duties. They understood that they would continue to hold
such posts as long as they continued to support the Court
party in Parliament. The system was so widespread that the
Cavalier Parliament, elected in 1661, was known also as the
Pension Parliament. Hitherto, it had been unnecessary for
a king to "influence” a Parliament which he could dismiss
at any time. But the King had now to regard Parliament as
a regular part of the constitution, and from this time onward
the bribery of Parliament became a feature of English politics
which did not disappear till the nineteenth century.
CHAPTER XXXVIII
CHARLES II
During his lifetime Charles II was considered by many
people to be a lazy, dissolute fellow who cared nothing for the
work of government, which he left to others, but only for his
own pleasures, and he has been so regarded by some historians
ever since. This is exactly the impression he wished to convey.
That he succeeded is some evidence of his ability. He was
the ablest, and in some ways the greatest, of the Stuart kings.
Much of the work of government he left to others, but it was the
work of routine and detail, and the settlement of matters of
minor importance. The main lines of his policy he kept in
his own hands. He was, indeed, influenced by ministers and
favourites, but they did not control him, although they seemed
to do so. He was content to remain in the background and to
leave his ministers to take the blame for the twists and turns
of his policy. He was as fully determined as his father and
grandfather had been to be an absolute monarch, but He cared
nothing about the appearance of power so long as he had its
substance. Realising that much had happened since the
beginning of the century, he made no attempt until towards
the end of his reign to rule without Parliament. Since Parlia-
ment must exist, he preferred to do what would never have
occurred to his father to do — to control it by corrupt ipeans
and make it his tool, and so to use it to strengthen his power.
With little sincere belief in religion he veered alternately
towards the Church of England and the Church of Rome,
according as best suited his purpose from time to time. He
solved the money question which troubled his father by
accepting large sums from his cousin, Louis XIV, King of
France. He has thus been accused of selling England to
France — of becoming Louis’ paid servitor. How far this
was from being the truth he realised even better than Louis
himself. For he regularly accepted Louis' money, but suited
himself about keeping to the terms of the bargain he made.
200
CHARLES II
201
Further, he would so arrange matters as to induce Louis to
pay him to adopt a line of policy which he would have followed
in any case. While he was pursuing these tricky ways much
of his time was passed in a round of gaiety and dissipation
that completely hoodwinked most of the people of his own
and later times.
It would seem that a king who acted in this way was without
principle. Principles of religion and morality he had none,
but he held firmly to the family principle of Divine Right,
though he did not talk about it, and the story of his action in
preserving his brother’s succession to the throne against the
efforts of the Whigs to exclude him illustrates to the full both
his devotion to the cause of Divine Right and his great ability
in intrigue.
Charles II was tall and active, gay and witty. His court
was crowded with his dissolute followers. The King himself
was gracious, though he did not altogether forget the dignity
of his position. He gained the reputation of being kind-
hearted, since he rarely refused a request. But such kind-
ness was superficial, and did not extend to the taking of any
steps to save the innocent people who were done to death
while the nation was panic-stricken about the Popish Plot.
But his apparent generosity served to increase his popularity,
and so helped in the fulfilment of his frequently expressed
determination, “not to go upon his travels again.”
His cousin Louis XIV (they were both grandsons of Henry IV,
King of France) was apparently a much greater king. He was
dignified and serious, and lived in great state, and in later life
became very religious. He was engrossed in statesmanlike
and far-reaching schemes for the strengthening of France and
the extension of his own power. He continued the policy
of Henry IV and Richelieu in trying to secure natural
boundaries for his country. These she possessed except in
the east, and he desired to extend the French frontier to the
Khme. But this would involve the conquest of all territory on
Bie left bank of that river, mcludmg several states of the Holy
Roman Empire m addition to the Spanish Netherlands and part
o he United Netherlands. He thus became engaged in long,
bloody, and expensive wars which brought about the exhaustion
without any corresponding benefit. Later in his
reign he hoped to secure the throne of Spain for his grandson,
so that if he succeeded the Spanish Netherlands would become
H
202
THE STUART PERIOD
to all intents and purposes part of France. He hoped to see
the Roman Catholic faith restored in England and for this
purpose was willing to make large grants of money to Charles II
in order to make him independent of Parliament. The suc-
cess of these schemes would make Louis unquestionably
supreme in western Europe, with vassal kings in Great Britain
and Spain, and if, as he hoped at one time, he became Holy
Roman Emperor as well, his power would extend over the
greater part of the continent. France was already formidable
by reason of her large population. She probably had twenty
millions of people, while Spain had seven millions. Her
chief opponents, England and Holland, could muster only
about five millions and three millions respectively. But Louis,
in spite of his schemes, was a man of second-rate ability,
and did not realise the extent to which Charles was willing to
use him for his own purposes.
For the first seven years of the reign Hyde, now Earl of
Clarendon, was Chancellor, and carried on the government.
He hoped to establish the Crown and the Church so firmly
that they could never again be overthrown. The work of settle-
ment, already described, was carried out during this period,
and his name has been connected, rather unfairly, with a series
of persecuting laws passed against the Puritans by the victorious
Cavalier party. They were not to be members of corporations,
for in towns the members of Parliament were frequently chosen
by town councils; the exclusion of Puritans from these bodies
would make it more likely that future Parliaments would be
Royalist in character. The ministers expelled from their
livings under the Act of Uniformity were forbidden, under
heavy penalties, to set up meeting-places of their own. And by
a further act these ministers were forbidden to live within five
miles of any corporate town or of any place where they had
formerly ministered. The enforcement of these cruel laws led
to the imprisonment of numbers of Puritans, among whom
was John Bunyan, author of the Pilgrim's Progress . The
promise of “liberty to tender consciences/’ made in the
Declaration of Breda, was forgotten. _ , ■ .
The Restoration made no immediate difference to Hhg 11
foreign policy. Charles and his Chancellor continued the
friendship of England with France which had been maintaine
now, with little break, for almost a century. This policy
indicated by the King’s marriage. If there had been a hren
CHARLES II
203
princess of marriageable age it is probable that Charles would
have wedded her. The lady selected to be his wife was
Catherine of Braganza, a Portuguese princess. Charles was
not in the least in love with her, and the marriage must be
regarded from the point of view of its political importance.
Portugal had been conquered by Spain in 1580, but since 1640
it had been struggling, and with success, to recover its in-
dependence, a task in which French help had been given, as
France was at war with Spain till 1659. The marriage must
be taken, therefore, as indicating French alliance. Some
interest attaches to Catherine’s dowry, which included Bombay,
Tangier, and a sum of money. The King granted Bombay
to the East India Company. Tangier, a place on the north
African coast, was occupied by an English garrison till 1684,
when the troops were withdrawn and the place abandoned.
Neither Clarendon nor his master wished to retain the
Cromwellian conquest of Dunkirk, which, indeed, was of little
use to England unless schemes of continental warfare were to
be entertained. Its retention would involve the country in
the expense, estimated at £100,000 a year, of another garrison
abroad. Louis XIV, on the other hand, wanted it, and was
willing to buy it, which he did for the sum of £200,000. The
sale was much criticised at the time, and Clarendon was
accused, unjustly, of accepting a French bribe to induce him
to consent to it. The new house that he was building was
nicknamed by the mob, “Dunkirk House.” But Dunkirk
was useless to England, it would be a source of expense, and
its sale would put in the King’s hands a sum of ready money
which he needed badly. In the circumstances the acceptance
of Louis offer was a sensible and even statesmanlike act.
Anglo-Dutch enmity, which had existed under the Common-
wealth, continued under the restored monarchy. As already
stated, the Navigation Act had been re-enacted and extended.
In addition to the rules of the Commonwealth Act, which were
repeated word for word, it was ordered that Dutch merchants
and agents were not to live in any English colony, and also
that whalebone, blubber, and salt fish imported into England
were to pay double duty, unless they came in the ship which
obtained them. It was assumed that if they came in any other
ship the Dutch would have had some interest in the trade.
Before long Dutch and English were fighting in various parts
of the world, especially in North America. Open war followed
204
THE STUART PERIOD
in 1665. As in the previous war, hostilities were entirely on
the water. Monk, now Duke of Albemarle, and Prince Rupert
defeated the Dutch off Lowestoft, and they followed up their
victory with a raid on the Dutch coast in which they destroyed
much merchant shipping. Lack of funds, however, caused
the King to order that a number of ships of the navy should
be laid up in port. The Dutch now had their revenge, and
their fleet, repaired and refitted, sailed up the Thames and the
Medway to Chatham, where they burned the dockyard and
several ships of the navy. This incident caused much alarm
in London, but it did not prevent the making of peace in 1667
on terms very favourable to this country. By the Treaty of
Breda each side was to retain its conquests, and the practical
effect of this was that the Dutch settlements in North America
— New Amsterdam and New Jersey — passed into English
hands. New Amsterdam was given to the King's brother, the
Duke of York, who held the post of Lord High Admiral, and
it was renamed New York.
London was visited by the plague in 1665. Such outbreaks
were frequent, but this was exceptionally severe, and many
thousands of citizens died. The visitation of 1665 differed
from many others, however, only in degree. Conditions cf
life in London were very bad. Narrow streets, badly ventilated
houses, the absence of satisfactory systems of sanitation and
water-supply, contributed to bring about the outbreak. It
was not till the nineteenth century that the secret of healthy
life in large towns was discovered — pure water, perfect sanita-
tion, absence of crowding, and the isolation of cases of infectious
disease as soon as they occur. The plague of 1665 was followed
by the Great Fire of 1666. A large part of the city was swept
away, and opportunity was thus offered of rebuilding on better
lines. St. Paul's was one of the churches destroyed, and the
present cathedral was built in its place from the designs ot
Sir Christopher Wren. ... .
Clarendon was never a popular minister, and he was disiixea
increasingly as the years went on. To the King and the gayer
spirits at court he seemed stiff, formal, and old-fashioned. 1 h
Puritans attributed their troubles to him. In Payment
critics of court extravagance found in him a defender ot ^tn
King, and were ready to regard him as the audior of
they deplored. Yet he remonstrated with the King m pnv ,
and Charles found that an old and faithful servant
205
CHARLES II
become an intolerable bore. The disasters which befell during
the Dutch war led to public demand for his fall. He was not
responsible for what had happened, but he was the scapegoat
on whom the blame fell. There was talk of impeachment,
and Clarendon became alarmed. He must have known that
a charge of treason could not possibly have been sustained.
Yet Strafford had been no traitor, and Strafford had died.
The King advised him to fly to the continent, and he did so
in 1667. This was exactly what everybody wanted. To pre-
vent his return an Act of Attainder was passed against him,
his flight being taken as an admission of guilt. There was, of
course, no real intention of putting him to death, but the Act
served its purpose. He spent his remaining years in France,
and wrote a History of the Great Rebellion. He died in 1674.
Freed from Clarendon, Charles resolved not to have a chief
minister in future. For the next few years the chief offices of
state were held by Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley,
and Lauderdale. The fact that the initial letters of their names
happen to form the word Cabal has given rise to the idea
that they formed a secret council which ruled the country for
its own sinister purposes. Nothing is farther from the truth.
The King ruled the country, and they did not even form a
council. Probably not one of them enjoyed the King's entire
confidence, and they certainly had different aims, and intrigued
against one another.
During this period Charles seems to have considered
embracing the Roman Catholic faith and forming a close
alliance with France in order to further his plans of becoming
absolute. Louis had been at war with Spain for possession
of the Spanish Netherlands, and the Dutch, in alarm at the
prospect of the French reaching their borders, obtained the
alliance of England and Sweden for their defence. This
Triple Alliance of 1668, which was popular in England, caused
Louis to give up for the time being his plan of conquest of the
Spanish Netherlands and to be content with the acquisition of
territories to the east of France which brought him nearer to
the Rhine, but he was determined to punish the Dutch for their
presumption in checking his schemes. To detach England from
the Triple Alliance he sent as his representative to England
the Duchess of Orleans, Charles's sister, and the only person
.^,. w ^ om reall Y c^rcd. The King of England was quite
willing to listen to proposals for a French alliance, and in
206
THE STUART PERIOD
1670 entered into the Treaty of Dover, by which he agreed
to assist Louis in his forthcoming war against the Dutch.
Louis further undertook to pay Charles the sum of two million
livres (a livre was the equivalent of the modern franc), while
Charles promised to embrace the Roman Catholic faith — not
immediately, but at some future time when circumstances
should be favourable to such a course. There was, however,
a possibility that this change in the King's religion and his
acceptance of French gold might lead to another Puritan
rebellion in England, and if this should happen Louis under-
took to assist Charles with a brigade of six thousand French
troops. It might seem that such help would be totally in-
adequate against a revived New Model Army, but it must be
remembered that such a force at the King’s disposal at the
beginning of a revolt would probably turn the scale in his
favour. Charles thus appeared to have reversed his foreign
policy completely between 1668 and 1670. It is probable,
however, that he was never very sincere in his Dutch alliance,
and that he entered into it in order to be in a position to bargain
with Louis. He was quite willing to ally with France, but he
had no intention of giving for nothing an alliance which Louis
could be induced to purchase. The greater part of the Treaty
of Dover was secret even from some of the King’s ministers.
Clifford and Arlington knew of it. Buckingham and Ashley
were certainly ignorant of Charles’s intention to become a
Roman Catholic. ,
The Dutch War, the second of the reign and the third ot
the century, began in 1672, and the republic was attacked by
the French on land and by the English at sea at the same time.
Louis invaded Holland at the head of large armies under the
real command of his marshals, Turenne and Conde. P^ nic
prevailed for a time, and the Dutch statesmen, Jan and Cor-
nelius De Witt, were overthrown and murdered. There baa
been no Stadtholder since 1650, but the office was now revived
and the young William of Orange, son of WUliam II, an
grandson of King Charles I, and therefore nephew of Charles it,
was appointed to it. He adopted the heroic measure ol f open-
ing the dykes and flooding a large part of the land, f° rc “S f
French to draw back. He thus gained his immediate ob ec
holding on till the winter, and before the spring ! “ ! “‘f? a
was formed against France. By 1673 Louis was a ,
European war instead of a Dutch war. Fighting
207
CHARLES II
till 1678, and when peace was made by the Treaty of Nijmegen
in that year Louis failed to gain a single acre of Dutch territory.
At sea a stubborn fight occurred in 1673 between the English
fleet, under the Duke of York, and the Dutch, under De
Ruyter, off Southwold. Twice the Duke was forced to transfer
his flag to another ship, so that he had three flagships in the
course of the battle. (Another occasion in English history
when such an incident happened was in 1915, in the Battle of
the Dogger Bank, when Sir David Beatty had three flagships
in succession in the course of the fight.)
Charles had not yet announced his conversion to the Roman
Catholic faith, and judged that the opportunity to make public
so unpopular a change might come when the nation was re-
joicing over a series of victories over the Dutch. Meanwhile
he attempted to conciliate the Puritans (by this time commonly
called Dissenters, because they dissented from the Church)
by issuing a Declaration of Indulgence, which suspended the
operation of all laws which imposed penalties on anybody for
reasons of religion. Many imprisoned Dissenters, among them
John Bunyan, were released. The Declaration was welcomed
by some who, like Ashley (now Earl of Shaftesbury), hoped
to see toleration established, and by others who, like the Duke
of York, realised that the concession to Dissenters applied
equally to Papists. But this method of granting freedom from
persecution was open to serious objection. The King had
no right by himself to suspend a law which had been passed
by Parliament.
At the same time as the Declaration of Indulgence was issued,
another royal act caused grave financial difficulty in the city of
London. The goldsmiths had developed a banking business,
and had lent some of their surplus funds to the King, who in
1672 suspended the payment of interest on these loans and
postponed the repayment of the loans themselves, though the
existence of the debt was recognised. The goldsmiths were
in difficulties, and could not pay their customers. Many
people were ruined.
When Parliament met in 1673 the Declaration of Indulgence
came in for severe criticism, and a definite protest was sent to
the King. He replied that he had not acted in any uncon-
stitutional way, and that he had merely done what had been
done by other kings before him. But members of Parliament,
Anglican and Puritan alike, pressed for the withdrawal of the
208
THE STUART PERIOD
Declaration. Shaftesbury, who still thought that Charles
wanted to give toleration to Protestant Dissenters, and York,
who knew that his brother intended the Declaration as a step
towards Romanism, both advised him to stand firm. Louis,
however, in the crisis of the Dutch War, did not want to see
Charles embroiled in a contest with his people, and advised
him to give way. Charles was able to gauge the situation
accurately, and he withdrew the Declaration. The triumphant
party in Parliament followed up its victory by passing the
Test Act, by which all persons who held office under the
Crown were to take an oath denying belief in transubstantiation,
and were to take the sacrament according to the rites and
ceremonies of the Church of England. This famous Act was
intended to keep Roman Catholics out of public posts. It
did not apply to the Crown itself, but a large number of
resignations, including those of Clifford, Arlington, and ^ the
Duke of York, indicated that many Papists held high positions
at court and elsewhere. Charles realised that no-popery
feeling was as strong among Anglicans as among Puritans,
and he definitely gave up his aim of reaching absolutism by
following a Catholicising policy.
The Cabal period was over. Clifford and Arlington were n
longer in office. Shaftesbury's eyes were opened « last to
the King's real policy, and though that policy was now dropped
he became henceforth Charles's bitter opponent Charles
turned to a new adviser. Sir Thomas Osborne, Earl °
a stout defender of the Church, and hoped that his .influence
over Parliament would revive the loyalty and SU ^‘ SS1 t
of that body. If Danby could induce Parliament to SU PP
the King, he would not be driven to make the unpleasant c o
between calling a new Parliament and ruling without , '
Danby was a staunch Cavalier and Churchman. He
heskate to use bribery in order to keep to his side a sohd
sgar isss
SLTi
formerly to crush them, now that ^ tephew was bta
and accordingly peace was made with HoUand m . i 74 1
Treaty of Westminster, Louts being left to continue tne
209
CHARLES II
alone. Charles, however, was not disposed to range himself
against Louis, and saw clearly that he might be able to play his
cousin and his Parliament off against each other. If Parlia-
ment proved to be antagonistic he could point out to Louis
that, unless French money were forthcoming, he would be
forced to yield to parliamentary demands, even to the extent
of assisting the Dutch against France. Accordingly, in 1675
Louis promised to pay Charles £100,000 per annum if Parlia-
ment was dissolved. This was not done, though it was not
allowed to meet for more than a year. When it reassembled
in 1677 Shaftesbury urged that it had legally ceased to exist
in consequence of the long interval which had elapsed. This
was a bad move on his part and both Houses opposed his view,
the Lords even sending him to the Tower. Louis paid two
million livres to secure a further prorogation. Danby, how-
ever, pursued his plans for a Dutch alliance while his master
was intriguing with the French King. In November, 1677,
the young Stadtholder married the Princess Mary, daughter
of the Duke of York. The marriage was popular, and it was
anticipated that Parliament at its meeting would grant money
for a war to help the Dutch against France. Further, as the
Duke was his brother’s heir and had no son, Mary was second
in succession to the throne. Her marriage was immensely
important, therefore, and it might be regarded as indicating an
English intention to help the Dutch against France. Louis
was thoroughly alarmed at this possibility and renewed his
negotiations with Charles. By a secret agreement made early
in 1678 Charles undertook to remain neutral in return for a
payment of six million livres. He had no real intention of
re-entering the war, but he was quite willing to let Louis pay
for the maintenance of a neutrality which he did not mean to
break m any case. Danby was much against this treaty, but
at the King’s command he conducted the negotiations. Not
long after the conclusion of the treaty Louis himself made
peace with the Dutch by the Treaty of Nijmegen.
The whole country was stirred in 1678 by the announcement
of the supposed discovery of a Roman Catholic plot to kill the
King and put the Duke of York on the throne, and to accompany
these proceedings by a general massacre of Protestants. In-
formation of the plot was given by Titus Oates, a man of bad
Sn^n /' Wh0 i, h t d u f0r t m f 1 y Studied in a J esuit college in
Spain, from which he had been expelled. He now asserted
H
210
THE STUART PERIOD
that he had made certain discoveries, as a result of his association
with the Jesuits, which he, as a loyal subject, was bound to
reveal. In times before Scotland Yard had been established
for the detection of crime, the Government relied upon
"informers" to assist them in its exposure and prevention,
and such people were rewarded. There was never any lack of
them, and most of them were out-and-out liars. Oates was
no exception to the rule, and it is certain that he came forward
in order to secure a reward for what he revealed. Perhaps
his tale would have attracted little attention had not Sir
Edmund Berry Godfrey, the magistrate before whom Oates
placed his revelations, been murdered a few days afterwards.
Oates announced that the murder was the work of the Papists,
and that the massacre of Protestants was beginning. The
greatest public excitement prevailed. As a matter of fact the
"plot" was a pure invention. Oates in his examinations was
proved again and again to be lying; yet people believed him,
and public feeling was stirred very strongly against the Roman
Catholics. Many were arrested for their complicity in the plot,
and from time to time Oates made fresh revelations, naming
others who in their turn were seized. These unfortunate
people were given the farce of a trial and were sentenced to
death. Nothing in his life is more discreditable to Charles II
than his failure to exert himself to save these innocent victims
of popular panic. Oates was richly rewarded, and was even
given a bodyguard when he stated that the Papists were
threatening his life. He did not accuse the Duke of York of
complicity in the plot, but he brought a charge against the
Queen. The King, however, resented this so warmly that the
informer judged that he had made a mistake, and the accusation
was dropped. The King himself utterly disbelieved in the
plot, and to his brother he made the uncomplimentary remark,
" They will never kill me to make you King.” But the London
mob was intensely excited. To the people there seemed
nothing unreasonable in the revelations of Titus Oates. Roman
Catholics were regarded as capable of any evil. During the
century they had plotted murder on a large scale in the reign
of James I, a massacre of Protestants had occurred in Ireland
in 1641, they were believed (quite unjustly) to have caused
the Great Fire of 1666, and now they were thought to be
planning fresh mischief.
It is doubtful if Shaftesbury believed in the plot, but he
CHARLES II
2 1 1
saw the possibility of making use of it. The no-popery feeling
of the nation was roused, and Shaftesbury regarded this as
a golden opportunity to secure the exclusion of the Duke of
York from the succession to the throne. The Earl had for
some time been engaged in organising his followers in Parlia-
ment as a definite party, which was soon to be known as the
Whig party. The first use he made of the situation created
by the plot was to secure the passage through Parliament of
the Parliamentary Test Act, which debarred Roman Catholics
from sitting in either House, though an exception was made
in favour of the Duke of York. The principle of the Test Act
of 1673 was thus extended to members of Parliament.
But the days of the Cavalier Parliament were drawing to a
close. Louis XIV had always disliked Danby on account of
that statesman’s efforts to promote Anglo-Dutch friendship,
and he now saw a chance to ruin him. A letter written by
Danby at the King’s command in the course of the negotiations
which preceded the secret treaty of 1678 was sent by Louis
to the Whigs, who placed it before the House of Commons.
The amazed members found that the minister had apparently
followed two policies. Openly an opponent of France, he
seemed secretly to have joined in intrigues with Louis. That
he had done so unwillingly, and only at the express command
of King Charles, did not save him from impeachment. The
Lords, however, would not commit him to prison until they
had considered the charges, and to save him, and possibly
to prevent further revelations, Charles dissolved Parliament,
which had existed from 1661 to 1679.
The new Parliament was elected in March, 1679, while the
excitement over the Popish Plot still prevailed. It was, as
Shaftesbury had foreseen it would be, strongly Whig and
Protestant in character. During its short existence it passed
the Habeas Corpus Act, which was intended to prevent the
Crown from keeping political prisoners under lock and key
without bringing them to trial. Hitherto it had been difficult
to get a writ of habeas corpus, which would compel a gaoler to
produce his prisoner before a judge and state the cause of his
detention. If it appeared to be in any way improper or illegal
it was the duty of the judge to order the prisoner’s release.
T u-u eW > mad f. lt easier to § et th e writ issued, and it
prohibited the sending of prisoners over the sea in order to
avoid the writ. But to Shaftesbury this was not the most
212
THE STUART PERIOD
important business of the session. He hoped to use the
opportunity of having a Whig majority in the House of
Commons to extend the principle of the Test Act to the Crown.
The Whigs brought forward an Exclusion Bill, by which the
Duke of York would be deprived of his right of succession to
the throne. The Bill passed its second reading in the House
of Commons, and the King, to save his brother's succession,
dissolved Parliament in July, 1679.
Throughout the critical time which followed Charles played
a waiting game. While the no-popery fever raged, the Whigs
would have a majority in Parliament, and the demand for the
exclusion of the Duke would be pressed. But the King was
convinced that the excitement engendered by the plot would
die away in time. If he could in any way secure postponement
of the question long enough, he would be able to defeat the
Whig plan. But he would not be able to hold out indefinitely
if Parliament exerted pressure upon him by withholding sup-
plies of money. Accordingly, when the new Parliament was
elected in October, 1679, and proved, like its predecessor, to
contain a Whig majority, he postponed its meeting from time
to time, and it did not actually assemble till October, 1680.
Petitions and counter-petitions reached the King on the subject
of the meeting of Parliament, but he preferred to wait. When
at length Parliament met, the House of Commons passed the
Exclusion Bill, but the measure was defeated in the House of
Lords, largely through the efforts of the Earl of Halifax. The
angry Whigs in the Commons refused to grant supplies, and
in January, 1681, Charles dissolved Parliament. The new
Parliament was ordered to meet at Oxford, on the pretext 01
plague raging in London, in March, 1681. TheJWhigs were
still in a majority, but Oxford was not London. They missed
the support of the London mob. Oxford was traditionally
loyal to the Crown. Nevertheless, the Whigs again P ress .^
for the Duke’s exclusion. Charles attempted to bargain with
them. Would they agree to the banishment of James with
the title of King, William of Orange, his son-in-law, ruling as
Regent? The Whigs were convinced that Charles was on the
point of yielding, on account of his pressing need for money,
and refused the proposed compromise. At tength the tw
Houses were summoned to meet the King. They we
the announcement of his submission; they heard him diss
Parliament. Panic-stricken, the Whigs fled from Oxford.
CHARLES II
213
What was the cause of the King's triumph when he had
seemed to be on the point of yielding for financial reasons?
It was that once again French money had been supplied.
Charles had pointed out to Louis that unless he received
money he would be compelled to yield to Parliament, James
would be excluded from the succession, and William would
become King. Now Louis regarded William as his chief
enemy. He would not like him to become King of Great
Britain. The English alliance would be permanently lost to
France. Rather than face this, Louis promised to pay two
million livres at once and a pension of one and a half million
livres per annum. No secret treaty was signed this time;
there would be no incriminating papers to reach a future House
of Commons. Yet, if Charles knew before the meeting of the
Oxford Parliament that his difficulties had been met, why did
he offer to agree to the banishment of his brother and the
appointment of William as Regent? Probably the offer was
not sincere, and would not have been made if the King had
not been certain that the Whigs would reject it. As it was, they
were made to appear to be extremists who would listen to no
compromise, while he posed as a moderate man, anxious
only for a reasonable settlement in the best interests of all
concerned.
For the rest of his reign Charles ruled without a Parliament.
The Whigs had lost, and lost so completely that for several'
years they ceased to exist as an organised party. The King, '
that consummate master of intrigue, had won. For a long time ,
every circumstance had seemed against him, and his ultin^te
submission had seemed to be only a matter of time. But the.
Whigs had overreached themselves and had played into this
hands. [
The triumphant court proceeded to exact vengeance from
its opponents. Proceedings were taken on trumped-up charges
against various people who had been prominent against the
Crown in the recent crisis. Shaftesbury was in the Tower for
a time on a charge of treason, and though he succeeded in
recovering his liberty he made use of it in trying to organise a
rising on behalf of the Duke of Monmouth, the King’s illegiti-
mate son. The failure of this effort led to Shaftesbury's flight
and death in exile in 1683. The discovery of a plot toassas-
sinate the King at Rye House in 1683 brought about further
Whig arrests, and the condemnation of Lord Russell and
THE STUART PERIOD
214
Algernon Sidney. Many towns were forced to give up their
charters, and to receive new ones. The new charters were so
framed as to secure Tory predominance in towns which had
hitherto been Whig, and it was hoped that in a future Parlia-
ment most of the town members would be Tory, as the sup-
porters of the Crown were now being called, instead of Whig,
as heretofore.
But Charles did not live to call another Parliament. Early
in 1685 he was seized with apoplexy and died after a short
illness. On his deathbed he refused the ministrations of the
Anglican clergy, the room was cleared, and a Roman Catholic
priest was smuggled in. What weight of sin was confessed to
that priest by the dying King no man may know. But Charles
the Second, King of Great Britain and head of the Church of
England, died a penitent member of the Church of Rome.
CHAPTER XXXIX
JAMES II
Charles II was succeeded by his brother James, Duke of
York, whom the Whigs had tried to exclude from the throne.
In some respects he was a better man than his brother, but he
did not possess his brother's ability. Charles, by affecting to
despise public business, by arranging matters so that his
ministers were blamed for the faults of his policy, by knowing
when to yield to public opinion, by being content with the
substance of power without being concerned about its outward
appearance, had retained his throne and restored the fortunes
of his line. James, a man with some regard for truth, honour,
and religion, where his brother had none, resembled his father
and grandfather in being unable or unwilling to conceal his
wish for arbitrary power and in openly referring to Divine Right.
The whole object of his reign, after the first few months, was
to bring the country back to the Roman Catholic faith and to
make himself absolute.
Despite the no-popery frenzy of a few years earlier, the
accession of James was not unpopular. The Tories, who had
been all-powerful since the Whig flight from Oxford, believed
m Divine Right, and welcomed him as the rightful heir. The
nation was gratified at the issue of a statement in which James
promised to uphold the Church and to regard his own religion
as his private affair. It was understood that, while James as
a man would be a Papist, James as King would be Head and
Protector of the Church of England. The good impression
was strengthened by his consenting to be crowned, as other
English kings had been, in Westminster Abbey by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury. But his going to mass in state, and not
privately, shortly afterwards, was an ominous sign of change.
A Parliament was summoned, and the effect of the Tory
ZZtfJ thC P u l feW y f ars was seen * M any towns had
rptnrnpH ^ ^ ^ n0W mled b Y Tories, who
returned Tory members to the House of Commons. The new
215
2l6
THE STUART PERIOD
Parliament was strongly loyalist, and settled the royal revenue
at £1,900,000 per annum for life — a sum much larger than that
which Charles II had received. It was unnecessary, therefore,
for James to apply from time to time either to Parliament or
to Louis for supplies. His income was so large as to make
him independent of both.
The Whigs were in despair. Since the dissolution of the
Oxford Parliament they had been scattered throughout the
country, while many of the more notable of them had taken
refuge in Holland. The peaceful and even popular accession
of James had destroyed their last hope of preventing his
becoming King, and their thoughts turned towards treason.
Two risings were planned. In Scotland the Duke of Argyll
attempted to rouse his clan, but he was captured and put to
death. A more serious revolt occurred in the south-west of
England. The Duke of Monmouth landed at Lyme Regis
in Dorsetshire with the intention of claiming the throne. He
was joined by large numbers of people as he moved from place
to place, and at Taunton he was proclaimed King. (His name
was James, and his followers styled him King Monmouth in
order to distinguish him from his rival.) But royal troops
scattered his forces at Sedgemoor, and Monmouth was captured.
He was brought to London, and though he was granted an
interview with the King, in which he pleaded for mercy, he was
put to death on Tower Hill. The rebellion was followed by
the Bloody Assize, in which Chief Justice Jeffreys visited the
affected counties and inflicted brutal punishment on those
accused of being concerned in the revolt. Many hundreds of
people were hanged, and very large numbers were sold into
slavery in the West Indies, a fate that might be worse than
death. The result of this barbarity was that the south-west
was completely crushed for the time being, and that sullen
hatred of James and his rule remained.
Memories of the Popish Plot were revived early in the reign.
Titus Oates, through whose “information" many innocen
Roman Catholics were executed, was now in prison and was
charged with perjury, of which he was certainly guilty. Perjury
was not a crime for which the death sentence could be passed,
and Oates was ordered to undergo lifelong imprisonment and to
stand in the pillory five times every year, besides being branded.
In addition, he was to be flogged at the cart s tail from Aldga
to Newgate, and after two days from Newgate to Tyburn.
JAMES II 217
The punishment was frightful, and was probably intended to
be fatal. Yet Oates survived it, and in the reign of William 111
he was released from prison.
The King’s success during the first few months of his reign
had been so marked that he now formed definite schemes for
the extension of his religion in England. He had been sup-
ported hitherto by the Tory and Church party against the Whigs
and he was foolish enough to think that he could rely on their
continued help if he attacked the Church itself. In this he
was utterly mistaken, and the remainder of his short reign is
filled with the story of his efforts to extend Roman Catholicism,
and of his loss of the support of every class of the community.
Qlis first difficulty was the Test Act. While it remained no
Roman Catholic could hold office under the Crown, and
James could make no serious progress if he could not appoint
his co-religionists to places at court. Even his loyal Parlia-
ment would not modify the Test Act, and he dissolved it in
anger. He then claimed the Dispensing Power, by which he
was able to dispense with an Act of Parliament in the case of
any person to whom it applied. l^To test his right to the Dis-
pensing Power he appointed Sir Edward Hales, a Roman
Catholic, to a commission in the army, and Hales's servant, a
man named Godden, laid information against his master for
accepting a post under the Crown without taking the oath
required by the Test Act. At the trial of the case Hales pro-
duced a dispensation from the King enabling him to hold office
without taking the oath. The judges were thus called upon
to decide whether the dispensation was valid. They deter-
mined that it was, and the delighted King proceeded to fill up
places at court and in the army with his Roman Catholic
friends. The Test Act was for the time being dead, since it
was only necessary for James to give, with each appointment
or commission, a dispensation exempting the person named
from taking the oath. The first step had been gained.
/ The King next turned his attention to the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridgel At Cambridge the Vice-Chancellor,
Sir Isaac Newton, was deprived of his position as head of his
college because he would not admit a Benedictine monk to the
degree of M.A. unless he took the usual oath of assent to the
Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England — an oath that
a Roman Catholic could not take. At Oxford, James, relying
on his dispensing power, made various appointments of Roman
2l8
THE STUART PERIOD
Catholics to vacant posts. At Magdalen College he directed
the Fellows to choose as their President a Roman Catholic,
named Farmer. They refused, and selected one of their
number, Hough, for the post. They were deprived of their
fellowships, and Roman Catholics were appointed in their places.
James did not persist in establishing Farmer as President,
but nominated in his place Parker, Bishop of Oxford, a secret
Papist. The installation of the new President, however, was
only possible with the support of a body of troops. The King
interfered to a greater or less degree in the affairs of other
colleges. He would, if he could, have made the University
into a Roman Catholic institution. But any progress that he
made by securing Roman Catholic appointments was more
than counterbalanced by the opposition which was aroused
by his high-handed proceedings. It may seem remarkable
that James should have thought it worth while to trouble
himself so much with the two universities. Probably it was
because young men were trained at these places to become
clergy of the Church of England. If a thoroughly Roman
Catholic atmosphere could be established at the universities,
the supply of clergy to the Church would, in future, consist of
men with strong leanings to the Roman Catholic faith. Such
men throughout the country would teach their people the
doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and in course of time
James’s aim of bringing in that faith would be achieved.
To further his designs the King re-established in 1686 the
Ecclesiastical Commission Court, which had been abolished
in 1641 by the Long Parliament. This action was quite illegal,
but during the two or three years of its existence the court
supported him in the work he was doing.
In 1687, finding the opposition of Tories and Churchmen
to his plans growing ever stronger, James schemed to ally
Dissenters with Catholics against the Church. Dissenters
were still suffering from the cruel laws of the Clarendon Code,
and the King issued a Declaration of Indulgence by which all
penal laws relating to religion were to be suspended. The
power which he thus claimed was the Suspending Power,
which is not to be confused with the Dispensing Power, ay
the latter the King claimed the right to dispense with the
operation of a law in particular cases; by the Suspending Power
he claimed the right to suspend the law itself. As the sus-
pension might last for ever, it amounted to a claim that tne
JAMES II 219
King by himself might practically repeal a law, which in fact
could be done only by Parliament. But for the time James
acted on his claim. Charles II had made a similar claim
and had issued a Declaration of Indulgence with a like purpose
in 1672. But he withdrew it when he found that public
opinion was strongly against it. The two brothers differed in
their capacity to gauge the force of public opinion. James
found that his Declaration was strongly opposed, by Dis-
senters as well as by Churchmen. The persecuted Dissenters
certainly wanted relief from the cruelty of the law, but they
realised fully that the King's action was not in their interest,
but in that of the Catholics, and that, if he should carry his
schemes through, their lot would be more grievous than ever.
But opposition did nothing to make James withdraw the
Declaration. Instead, he issued a second Declaration of
Indulgence, and ordered the clergy to read it in churches on
two successive Sundays. Almost to a man they refused, and
in the few cases where time-serving clergy (like the Vicar of
Bray in the well-known song) read the Declaration the con-
gregation walked out. Samuel Wesley, the father of John
Wesley, preached a famous sermon on words from the Book
of Daniel, “Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not
serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image that thou hast
set up.’’ The bishops who were in London, six in number,
met Archbishop Sancroft at Lambeth Palace and drew up a
petition to the King praying him not to enforce the order to
read the Declaration. They crossed the river and went to
Whitehall to see the King and present the petition. It was
late at night and James had retired to bed, but upon hearing
of their arrival he rose and received them. It is probable
that he expected to learn from them that the Church was ready
to submit to his will. Yet if he really thought this he must
have been singularly unable to estimate the strength of the
opposition. He was very angry at receiving the petition and
described it as a libel. A few days later the Archbishop and
the six bishops were arrested and sent to the Tower on a charge
of libelling the King. The greatest efforts were made to get
together a jury which would convict them, but in spite of this
they were acquitted, and their release was the signal for public
rejoicings in London and throughout the kingdom.
Public feeling was strongly against the King, but it had not
yet reached the point of rebellion. James had an army of
220
THE STUART PERIOD
thirteen thousand men, mostly Irish and Roman Catholic,
and under Roman Catholic officers, encamped at Hounslow, and
this alone would have been sufficient to put down any attempt
at revolt. There was, moreover, a widespread feeling that
rebellion was not worth while. James was not a young man,
and his reign could not last for many years, while at his death
he would be succeeded by his daughter Mary, now the Princess
of Orange, a Protestant. His proceedings would then be
reversed, and his reign being but a “nine days' tyranny"
would leave no permanent effect on the country. But the
nation learned with astonishment that the Queen, Mary of
Modena, had given birth to a son in June, 1688. In the suc-
cession a son takes precedence of a daughter, and Mary was
no longer next heir to the throne. The infant Prince of Wales
would be brought up as a Roman Catholic, and the policy
of James would be continued by a line of Roman Catholic
kings. In their dismay at the turn affairs had taken many
men refused to believe that the young Prince was genuinely
the son of James, and tales were told of the infant having
been smuggled into the palace in order to cheat the Princess
of her rights of succession. Although this was commonly
believed at the time it is now generally recognised that the
child was really the son of James.
The position was now serious, and seven leading men,
including both Whigs and Tories, sent an invitation to the
Prince of Orange to come over and deliver the country from
the tyranny of James II. ,
It is necessary before considering the events which followed
the invitation to glance briefly at the course of affairs in western
Europe. Louis XIV had made peace with the Dutch in 1678,
but he was still engaged in developing his plans. Though he
was not formally at war, he seized several places west of the
Rhine, in the Holy Roman Empire, during the next few years,
and succeeded in arousing the apprehension of his neighbours.
He revoked the Edict of Nantes, by which in 1598 his grand-
father, Henry IV, had granted toleration to the Huguenots,
in 1685, and persecution of these French Protestants began.
Hundreds of them fled to England, Holland, and Branden-
burg, and founded or developed important industries in their
new homes. Thus Louis by his bigotry reduced French
strength and increased that of his future opponents.
The alarm felt at his encroachments brought about in 1000
221
JAMES II
the formation of the League of Augsburg, an alliance of the
Holy Roman Empire, Spain, many princes of the Empire and,
above all, the Dutch, under William of Orange. The aim of
the League was to restrict French aggression, and its existence
was bound to lead sooner or later to war. But the League
was more powerful on paper than in the field. Spain under its
King, Charles II, was in decay, the Emperor was in no position
to fight on equal terms with France, and the Dutch by them-
selves would fight stubbornly, but with little hope of destroying
Louis' power. The attitude of England was of great impor-
tance to the League. If James would join it, it would become
a serious menace to French power, for England and Holland
were the two maritime powers, and the newly-formed French
navy could not be expected to overcome their united fleets. But
James was unwilling to abandon the traditional policy of his
family. He was Louis’ cousin, and, though not so closely
in touch with the French King as Charles II had been, was
not inclined to oppose him. The League of Augsburg con-
tained Catholic powers — yet William’s leadership seemed to
give it a Protestant appearance which was distasteful to James.
On the other hand, Louis' proceedings for the strengthening
of Catholicism in France were such as must meet with James’s
approval.
Louis was well served by his secret agents and knew very
soon that the invitation had been sent to William. He was, of
course, prepared to stand by his ally, for the accession of
William to the throne of England would mean the adhesion
of this country to the League, which Louis would then have
to face alone. He intimated to the Dutch that he would not
permit them to send an expedition to England. James, how-
ever, upon hearing of this, was angry, since it implied that he
was in need of French protection, and he showed his annoy-
ance in a communication to Louis. The French King there-
upon decided to modify his course of action. He withdrew his
fleet from the Channel into port, and he withdrew troops from
the north-east border of France, in order to make it easy for
William to go to England. He expected that James, in alarm,
would appeal to him for help, which he would give at once.
He would thus defeat William in England, and would make
James feel that he owed his throne to French aid, without which
he could not retain it. Louis would thus kill two birds with
one stone, and would overwhelm his principal adversary in
222 THE STUART PERIOD
the War of the League of Augsburg before that war had
properly begun.
But things did not work out in this way. Louis began the
Augsburg War by invading the Palatinate, and William, freed
from the immediate prospect of having to repel French attack,
sailed for England. The easterly wind that carried his ships
down the Channel prevented James's fleet from leaving the
Thames, and William landed at Brixham, in Tor Bay, and
marched to Exeter. For a week or two he received no English
help, and he may have wondered if he had been misinformed
as to the discontent with James's rule. But the south-west
was willing to help as soon as it was sure that William would
win. (It had no wish to experience another Bloody Assize.)
When men began to join William’s army others followed.
Very soon he was receiving support from all parts of the
country. James's own troops deserted; his officers joined
William; his daughter Anne turned against him. The des-
perate King now made concessions. He abolished the
Ecclesiastical Commission Court; he withdrew the Declaration.
But it was too late, and as news of William’s advance reached
him he fled. He was recognised at Sheerness and brought
back to London, but a second attempt at flight was more
successful, and he reached France. Louis had been expecting
James's messenger; he received the King himself. ;
The causes of the fall of James II are to be found in the
whole circumstances of his reign. He acted throughout in
defiance of public opinion, the strength of which he was never
able to estimate. He acted unconstitutionally in claiming
and exercising the Dispensing and Suspending powers. He
acted in defiance of the law in establishing the Ecclesiastical
Commission Court. He alienated Tories and Churchmen by
his attacks on Church and universities. His prosecution of
the seven bishops was tyrannical. He attempted to overawe
the nation by the maintenance of an army. Yet it is doubtful
if the nation would have risen against him had it not been tor
the birth of his son. The indefinite continuance of his tyranny
could not be borne. . . ~ TTri#lJ |
Why, however, did William accept the invitation? Until
the -birth of the Prince of Wales there seemed little reason for
him to do so. It would be foolish to risk his life and re P u ^'
tion in an expedition to gain what would come his way in ttie
course of nature before long. But William was most
223
JAMES II
to secure the inclusion of England in the League of Augsburg,
and James's refusal to enter the alliance against Louis seemed
to him to afford sufficient reason for him to come to England.
William was not eager to obtain the crown of England for its
own sake. His heart was in the defence of Holland. By
becoming King of England he could secure the permanent
alliance of England against France. It was worth his while to
make the attempt.
It is to be observed, therefore, that, tyrannical as was
James II, arbitrary and unconstitutional as was his rule, the
ultimate cause of his fall is not to be found in matters at home,
but in his attitude to European affairs. Had he adopted a
different foreign policy he might have retained his crown till
his death.
CHAPTER XL
COLONIES AND TRADE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
English commerce overseas had been very small in amount
before the Tudor period, and it was not till the reign of
Elizabeth that the English people gave any indication of their
coming greatness in seafaring and trade. Some small efforts to
establish colonies had been made during the reign of the Virgin
Queen, but none was successful, and at her death this country
did not possess a single settlement overseas. Other countries
had been more energetic or more fortunate. Spain claimed
nearly the whole of America, and had actually made extensive
settlements in Central and South America. Portugal had a
colony in Brazil and a number of trading posts in the East.
The Dutch had established settlements on the coasts of Africa
and Asia. The French, however, had had little more success
than their island neighbours, as their efforts at colonising m
North America had failed. In 1580 Portugal had been con-
quered by Spain, so that Portuguese possessions passed into
Spanish hands, and by the end of the century Spam bestrode
the narrow world like a Colossus." She refused to allow her
colonies to trade with other countries, which, if they wished
to develop foreign trade, must establish trading posts for them-
selves. England and Holland were both at war with Spain at
this time, and neither was inclined to permit her monopoly o
Asiatic and American trade to remain unchallenged.
On 31st December, 1600. the last day of the sixteenth
century, the English East India Company received from
Queen* Elizabeth its first charter. This body, which w
become one of the most famous trading companies in the
world’s history, established a number of
on the Indian coast during the seventeenth century, mdudmg
Surat in 1612 Madras in 1639, Bombay (which it receivea
from Charles II) in 1668, and Fort William
It attempted with less success to build up a trading connect^
in the island archipelago to the south-east of Asia, but here
224
225
COLONIES AND TRADE
met with fierce opposition from the Dutch East India Company,
which had been established in 1602, and their rivalry culminated
in the massacre of Amboyna in 1623. Dutch and English
remained bitter competitors for Asiatic trade. The Dutch
appeared to be the better equipped for the contest, for their
floating tonnage was much greater than that of the English,
while their extensive fishing industry produced a race of
skilled and determined seamen. But the superior population
and resources of this country enabled it to beat its rival in
the three wars of the century, and before long Holland was glad
to drop commercial competition and accept English protection
against the danger from France.
A French East India Company was established *in 1664 and
some trading posts were secured on the Indian coast. Anglo-
French rivalry in India did not develop, however, until the
middle of the eighteenth century. In the meantime the two
companies traded with the East without serious difficulty. It
was an understood thing that peace should prevail between
them east of the Cape of Good Hope, even at times when
England and France were at war, though, of .course, there was
no formal agreement to that effect.
Disaster and utter failure attended the efforts to colonise
Virginia and Newfoundland in the reign of Elizabeth, but a
settlement was established in Virginia in 1607, and was called
Jamestown in honour of the King. Farther north, many small
“plantations” were made during the first half of the seven-
teenth century, the most interesting, though not the most
important, being Plymouth, which was established by the
Pilgrim Fathers in 1620. The Massachusetts Company was
formed in 1629, and an important colony was started. Before
the middle of the century the New England group of colonies
was firmly established. The settlers were mostly Puritan,
and, except in Rhode Island, they expelled or persecuted any
who did not agree with them in matters of faith. The nature
of the climate was such as to encourage the labour of white
men, and the New England colonies, unlike those farther
south, never depended on slave labour. Land was cleared
by the efforts of these sturdy pioneers, with their sons and
hired workers. Farms were marked out, farmhouses were
built, and a living was obtained. The colonists had to main-
tain ceaseless watch against Indian attack, and, in the back-
woods, lived m daily peril. The picture of the settler in a
226
THE STUART PERIOD
loghouse, with one hand on his gun while he read his Bible, is
true to life. Agriculture was not the only industry. Lumbering
was almost equally important, and the fact that timber was so
abundant led to the establishment of a shipbuilding industry.
In 1632 a Roman Catholic nobleman. Lord Baltimore,
obtained authority from Charles I to establish the colony
of Maryland. Although the official religion of the settlement
was that of the Church of England, in practice Roman Catholic
worship was permitted, and Papists settled there in large
numbers. The colony competed with its southern neighbour,
Virginia, in the production of tobacco.
Later in the century, in the reign of Charles II, the Carolines
were settled. (They were not so called after the King, but in
honour of Charles IX of France, in whose reign, a hundred
years earlier, the French had made an unsuccessful attempt to
settle there.) South Carolina became the more important,
and depended for its labour supply upon imported slaves.
As was the case with Virginia, the chief product of the colony
was tobacco. Large estates were cultivated, and their pro-
prietors were men of aristocratic birth, who contrasted with
the New England settlers in being Anglican and 1 ory. 1 ne
colonial capital was Charlestown, named after the
Pennsylvania was established by a Quaker, William »
in 1681, and most of the settlers were members of th « Society
of Friends, who were persecuted in England. A large me
of religious toleration was allowed, but laws were P^sed
restrict drunkenness and gambling and various pastimes which
commonly led to these evils. . . • th
No account of English colonisation in America m tne
seventeenth century would be complete without some reference
to the West Indies. The earliest settlements were at St. Ki«s
in its cultivation. The sugar-cane was, • ' We st Indian
and sugar gradually replaced tobacco as the stop J hundre d
product, and the islands were valued for the next t
years chiefly on account of then: producuon of sugar.
Thus a chain of colonies, mainland and insular, cam
227
COLONIES AND TRADE
existence during the seventeenth century. These primitive
settlements do not seem, at first sight, to have been very
important, especially when they are compared with the vast
and mighty Dominions which are included in the British
Commonwealth to-day. But they were necessarily much
smaller, for the England of the seventeenth century had no large
surplus of population to send overseas. It should be noticed,
also, that these places were either islands or coast settlements.
If they extended into the interior they were on the banks of
a navigable river. The colonisation of the interiors of new
countries was then impossible, because no roads existed by
which supplies could be obtained from the coast and by which
products could be sent to the coast towns to be exported.
The penetration of interiors, whether of America, Africa, or
Australia, was impossible until the coming of railways. Isolated
exploring parties, of course, could and did find their way for
hundreds of miles inland, but no effective interior settlement
was possible until well into the nineteenth century.
Nor were the colonies of the seventeenth century regarded
by the people of this country as the beginnings of new nations.
They were looked upon as outposts of the mother country,
and were valued because they produced various important
articles which England, for climatic and other reasons, could
not produce for herself, and because as they developed they
provided markets for the home country’s manufactures. It
was thought to be right that their trade should be under
English control, and the Navigation Act of 1660 provided that
certain colonial products should be sent to England alone.
These enumerated articles were usually the most important
products of the colony. Non-enumerated products might be
sent to foreign countries, but all, whether enumerated or non-
enumerated, must be sent in English or colonial ships — ships
that were owned by Englishmen or colonials, commanded by
an English or colonial skipper, and of which three-quarters
of the crew were English or colonial. The mother-country
thought it was quite reasonable that she should enjoy privileges
in connection with colonial trade, in view of the fact that she
had been put to the expense of founding the colonies and was
still responsible for their defence. And the system was not
without its advantages to the settlers, who were sure of a
market and a fair price for their products. English merchants
profited by the purchase of colonial produce and its re-sale
228
THE STUART PERIOD
to foreign countries which required it but were not allowed to
buy it direct. While the colonies were small this “ Old Colonial
System” worked well, and if the settlers felt no great love for
their mother country there was on the other hand no great
dissatisfaction. English control over the colonies, apart from
rights over trade and responsibility for defence, extended
to the appointment of a governor, but in other respects the
settlers were left to themselves, and they enjoyed a large
measure of freedom. In many cases they were politically more
advanced than England was, for the colonial assemblies, which
made laws, really represented the people, which was not the
case with Parliament in England.
English trade overseas in the seventeenth century, whether
with the colonies or foreign countries, was carried on by great
trading companies, and the individual trader, or interloper,
was discouraged. These companies possessed charters granted
by the Crown, and they enjoyed a monopoly of the trade be-
tween England and the part of the world mentioned in their
charters. One of the earliest of these companies had been
the Merchant Adventurers, who carried on North Sea and
Baltic trade, but they were of less importance in the seven-
teenth century than formerly. The Muscovy Company, or
Russia Company, had been chartered by Elizabeth, as had the
Levant Company, or Turkey Company, which traded with the
Eastern Mediterranean. The East India Company's monopoly
extended from the Cape of Good Hope eastwards to Cape
Horn, and included, therefore, trade with all countries which
fringed the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The Guinea Company
opened up trade and made small settlements in West Africa.
The Hudson's Bay Company was founded in the reign ot
Charles II under the patronage of Prince Rupert.
For several reasons it was thought that company trading was
to be preferred to individual effort. Much of this- commerce
was with remote lands, amid people of strange ways ana
language. An interloper going to such regions to trade mig_
not hesitate to use violence and fraud, trickery and decei , , 1
order to secure the greatest possible profit. He might m
a fortune in a single voyage. That he would destroy die good
name of his race among the people he visited would not dist
him, since some other trader who reached the same pla
would suffer for his sins. But a company would not foliow
such a policy. Its trade would be carried on year after year.
British Possessions in 1714
Together with the chief Trading Companies and the regions covered by their monopolies.
THE STUART PERIOD
230
and it would be anxious to build up and maintai n a good
reputation for honesty and fair dealing. It would claim, and
with justice, that this reputation ought not to be imperilled
by the proceedings of interlopers. A company would be more
powerful than an interloper and might obtain, from the ruler
of the land visited, special privileges which would be denied
to the solitary merchant. The voyage over the seas was full
of peril. Almost from port to port the merchant ship was in
danger from pirates, who swarmed in all parts. A company,
however, could take more effective measures against these
miscreants by arming its ships and by sending them together
for mutual protection. The Government, too, found the com-
pany system preferable to that of trade carried on by a host of
private adventurers. Duties had to be levied and rules made.
To deal with a large company in such matters was easy. The
company would not conceal its cargoes nor stoop to smuggling,
since it dared not offend the Government which had issued,
and might revoke, its charter.
But the interloper was never quite put down. He repre-
sented the daring, adventurous spirit of the nation. Inc
company was solid and respectable; the interloper might, 11
occasion offered, indulge in a little piracy. The companies
held their own during the seventeenth century. In the
eighteenth century they decayed, and to an increasing often
the trade of this country passed into the hands of priv
English colonial trade policy was not singular. Othe
countries, especially France and Spain, controlled the trade
of their colonies even more rigidly than did England,
whole of Spanish colonial trade was carried on with a sing
privileged commercial house at Seville. Not only ™ n
colonial trade permitted with foreign countries ; it was not even
allowed with other Spanish merchants. But En .g^ me ° ^
the time of John Hawkins had aimed at securing a share in
Z profits of colonial trade, and the Spanish settlers n^he
New P World were quite willing to do business with th
interlopers. The Spanish Government .tried, with 1 vary g
success, to prevent such trade, but in the second halt ot in
seventeenth century Spain was growing rapid y weaker, ^and
the English adventurer, half trader and half prate, m ^ ^
only occasional opposition. By the end o . rtant enough
felt in mercantile circles that this trade was important enoug
231
COLONIES AND TRADE
to be recognised and above-board. From 1702 to 17*3
England was at war with Spain in the Spanish Succession War,
and by the peace made in 1713 Great Britain was permitted
to send one ship of six hundred tons every year to trade at
Porto Bello, and was given for thirty years the valuable
monopoly of the supply of negro slaves to Spanish colonies.
The Spanish colonial trade monopoly was at last beginning to
break down.
CHAPTER XLI
THE REVOLUTION
With the flight of James ar.d the approach of the Prince of
Orange to London a remarkable state of affairs existed. The
newcomer was not yet King; he was a foffcign invader.
The King had gone. Therefore England was for the moment
without a King, and had no form of government at all. This
fact gave the lowest classes in the City of London an oppor-
tunity for disorder of which they took advantage. But upon
William's arrival in London a meeting was held of the peers
who were in London at the time, together with men who had
been in any Parliament of Charles II and James II, and also
the Lord Mayor of London. This meeting asked William to
carry on the government and to call a Convention, and he
agreed to do so. He quickly restored order, and in about
three weeks the Convention, a Parliament in every way except
that it was not summoned by a King, met at Westminster.
The business of the Convention was, of course, to settle
the future government of the country. In the Commons t e
Whigs were in the majority. They held no belief in Divine
Right, and were ready and eager to apply the principles ot tn
Test Act to the Crown, as they had tried to do ten years earlier
in the Exclusion Bill. This seemed to them to be a golden
opportunity to declare the deposition of James II, to make k
impossible for Roman Catholics to ascend the throne in future
and to get Parliament to elect a King. Such a King would
certainly have no Divine Right. He would be appointed, i iot
by God! but by Parliament. And if Parliament could appoint
and depose kings it was clearly superior to kings, and th
great question of the Stuart Period was settled. and
But there was a Tory majority in the House of Lo »
the Tories believed in Divine Right. Yet Tones ; had ^ joined
with Whigs in opposing James II and neither wa , £ on
back. The Tories, in fact, wanted to bring abou , not s ^ n
of the problem which, while excludmg James, would not stra
232
THE REVOLUTION 233
their principles too much. Some wished to sentence James
to perpetual exile, although permitting him to retain the empty
title of King; in this case the Prince of Orange was to be
appointed Regent for the absentee monarch. Others thought
it possible to treat James, in view of his recent acts, as a mad-
man; in this case, too, a regency would be permissible. Others,
however, would go farther, and regard James as dead. He
was not dead, but a kind of legal, fictitious death might be
presumed. If this course should be followed, the next in
succession would take the throne. This was Mary (if the
infant Prince of Wales was treated as an adopted and not an
actual son of James), and William would be Prince Consort.
It is to be noticed that all these proposed solutions would
lead to the same actual result. All parties wanted William
to be the ruler of the country, whether as King, Prince Consort,
or Prince Regent. All realised that if William returned to
Holland, James would come back with a French army. He
would be restored to the throne, and a Bloody Assize would take
place compared with which that of 1685 would be insignificant.
At all costs, therefore, William must be induced to remain.
The two Houses agreed in passing a resolution to the effect
that “ It hath been found by experience to be inconsistent
with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to
be governed by a popish prince." The Commons further
resolved that "James the Second by his flight hath abdicated
the throne, and the throne is thereby vacant.” But the Lords
changed the word "abdicated” to "deserted,” and omitted
the second clause. These changes were important. If, as
the Commons contended, the throne was vacant, Parliament
could elect a new King. But if, as the Lords maintained, the
throne was not vacant, then either James was King or his
daughter Mary was Queen, and William would be either Prince
1 \ V r ' 1 1 1 . two Houses could not agree
and William himself sent for the Whig and Tory leaders.
He made no demands, but he told them that he would not be
Regent for an absentee King, and he would not be "gentleman
usher to his wife. They saw that he would be King or he
would leave the country. The matter was settled by con-
ferring the crown on William and Mary jointly— a device
that was employed in order to meet the views of both parties
as far as might be. The recognition of Mary as Queen was
a concession to Tory views of Divine Right, while the fact
234
THE STUART PERIOD
I
that the crown was offered to William and Mary by Parliament
satisfied the Whigs. Mary's position was not that of a Queen
Consort, who is Queen merely because she is the wife of a
King. She was Queen Regnant, as Elizabeth had been, but
in fact she left the work of government to her husband.
Before the actual offer of the crown was made, a Declaration
of Right was drawn up and presented to the Prince and Princess
of Orange. It enumerated certain actions and claims of
James II and declared them to be illegal. Excessive and cruel
punishments, the pretended Ecclesiastical Commission Court,
the Suspending Power, the Dispensing Power “as it hath
been used and exercised of late,” the maintenance of a standing
army in time of peace without consent of Parliament, were
among the things pronounced to be illegal. It was necessary
to draw up and present this to William and Mary before the
offer of the crown was made, as it was really a statement of
the conditions upon which it was to be given. William and
Mary accepted the Declaration, and thereupon the crown was
offered to and accepted by them. The Convention was
declared to be a proper Parliament, and one of its first acts
was the enactment of the Declaration of Right as a law, known
as the Bill of Rights. Until this was done it was not a law,
since it was merely a document drawn up by a Convention,
and accepted by the Prince and Princess of Orange. But when
it was enacted by Parliament and assented to by the King and
Dueen it became a law. . - n(y
The Bill of Rights provided for the succession by ordering
:hat the joint reign of William and Mary should be followed
3 y that of the survivor, and that their children should then
succeed. If Mary outlived William and married again, her
-hildren would come next in succession. Then were to com
her sister Anne and her children, and, lastly, the children of
William by another wife, if he should outlive Mary and ^
again. This would seem to be ample provision f ° r the s
cession for though William and Mary had no children th
Princess Anne was
died however, and within a dozen years it was found necess y
to provide further against a failure of the ^^ e ^ n s * atisfactory
The question of national finance was settled in a satisiac y
wav at last Hitherto the King's income had been the fund
out of which he had to maintain himself and govern thejxmn £
It was decided to keep these matters separate in future.
THE REVOLUTION 235
income was allowed to the King for his personal maintenance, \
and this was voted to him for life and was called the Civil List.
Money required for the work of government was, however,
voted for much shorter periods, and it soon became the practice
' The Revolution
to make these grants for a year only at a time. Parliament I
had effectually controlled the raising of money since the 1
Restoration, for its right to do so had not been disputed by the
Crown in any way since that event. It now obtained the right
j of supervising national expenditure, and it made this coiitrol
complete by appropriating supplies and by auditing accounts.
{ By Appropriation of Supplies was meant the granting of suras
THE STUART PERIOD
236
of money for particular purposes, instead of giving it for
government in general and leaving it to the whim of king or
minister to use it in any way he liked. The Audit of Accounts
was an examination, after the money had been spent, to
ascertain if the will of Parliament had been carried out. It
is clear from these arrangements that it would be necessary for
Parliament to meet every year in future.
The Whigs had for many years been trying to bring about
toleration for Protestant Dissenters. These men still suffered
under the harsh laws of the Clarendon Code. They had
behaved nobly in the constitutional crisis. They had refused,
when they might have been excused for accepting, the spurious
toleration offered them by James II in the Declaration of
Indulgence. They were now, by the Toleration Act of 1689,
granted the right to worship in their own way. Their con-
venticles were no longer to be illegal assemblies. They were
not yet, however, made eligible for membership of corpora-
tions. William himself had hoped for more than this. As a
Dutchman he had strong Puritan sympathies, and he wished
for a reconciliation to take place between Churchmen and
Dissenters by which the latter could find their way back into
the Church. But this proved to be impossible, and toleration,
and not “comprehension,” was to be the religious policy of
the future. n
The question of the army remained to be settled. Paper
safeguards against royal tyranny were without value if a king
could keep a standing army with which he could enforce his
will. The Whigs were strongly opposed to a standing army.
Yet to disband the army on the eve of a war with France (for
Louis would certainly try to restore James) would be madness.
The difficulty was overcome by Parliament passing a Mutiny
Act ” authorising the continuance of the army and the main-
tenance of military discipline for a period of six months.
Before its expiration the Mutiny Act was extended for a year,
and Parliament has continued it year by year until to- ay.
(After 1881 the Act was called the Army Act, and it is now called
the Army and Air Force Act.) The army thus renamed under
parliamentary control, and it became necessary for Parliamen
to meet every year in order that the act might be renewe •
The course of affairs in Scotland followed to a .great ex
that in Eneland. It was by no means inevitable tfiat
should be so. Scotland was not joined to England by anyt ing
THE REVOLUTION
237
more than the personal union of the crowns. James's flight
to France might be taken by the Scots to mean nothing more
than that their King had gone to live in one foreign country
instead of another. And no Scottish invitation had been sent
to William. But the Scots had suffered much since 1660.
The Episcopal Church was hated, and the Covenanters had
been persecuted. Scots, therefore, gladly seized the chance of
throwing off the Stuart yoke. In the Lowlands the news
of the flight of James was celebrated by popular risings against
the clergy of the Church of Scotland, who were maltreated
and driven from their homes.
William sent a small force under Hugh Mackay, a Scot in
his service, to the northern kingdom to restore order. As in
England, a Convention was summoned to meet at Edinburgh
to consider the state of affairs. Some supporters of James
were in the Convention, but finding themselves in a minority
they withdrew, under Graham of Claverhouse, to the High-
lands. The Convention declared that James VII had forfeited
the crown. It drew up a Claim of Right, and presented it
to William and Mary, who accepted it, and were thereupon
offered the joint sovereignty of Scotland. Thus Scotland
followed the example of England closely, but the Claim of
Right was accompanied by a declaration that the Church of
Scotland should be Presbyterian in future.
The followers of James, who were henceforth known as
Jacobites (the Latin word for “James" is “Jacobus"), now
endeavoured to rouse the Highlands. The clansmen were
ignorant of political affairs, and cared nothing for English
party struggles, though the chiefs were often men of education
and culture, some of them having been brought up in France,
and remaining devotees of the Roman Catholic faith. But
the smaller clans were jealous and fearful of the Campbells,
at the head of whom was the Duke of Argyll, a Whig and a
supporter of William. They responded to the appeal of
Claverhouse and at the Battle of Killiecrankie they charged
with such effect as to throw back Mackay's smaU force in
disorder But Claverhouse was slain, and the clansmen no
longer held together, but returned to their homes. Mackay
re-formed his troops and gained all the advantages of victory,
and marched mto the Highlands, where he called upon all
chieftains to recognise WiUiam's authority by taking £ oath
of allegiance by the 31st December, 1691. All did so except
238
THE STUART PERIOD
Maclan, chief of the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and he intended
to do so. He presented himself on the last day at Fort William,
in Argyllshire, only to be told that the nearest place at which
the oath could be taken was Inverary. This he did not reach
until the 6th January, 1692, when he took the oath. The
matter was placed, and perhaps misrepresented, before the
King by Sir John Dalrymple, who obtained from William an
order for the extirpation of the clan. The order was put in
Campbell hands and a number of men of the latter clan visited
the Macdonalds as friends. By night the massacre began, and
most of the Macdonalds were slain, or escaped to the hills,
only to perish of cold or starvation. This barbarous incident
remained for some time unknown in England, but when it
became known much indignation was felt and expressed.
Nothing was done, however, beyond the dismissal of Dalrymp
from the King’s service. ^ _ „
Ireland was ruled by Richard Taibot^Earl ^
as Lord Lieutenant of King James As the bulk of /he Irish
were Roman Catholic they did not look upon James s Catho
licising zeal in England with disfavour. When James fled to
France and was given shelter by his cousin Louis, he expected
to receive French help towards the recovery of his bst crown
and he decided to begin with Ireland, as he was most like y
to be received with enthusiasm there. It was a strategic erro,
If he had succeeded in Ireland he would still have had to
Conquer England and Scotland, where William would have had
time to consolidate his position. If, on the other hand, . he
had attacked England with a French army athis
'irelaifd "would have
P Trs d .:nd d ed ffiC at 1 ^sa.e with f e French a = , and
between him and the insn . . , wante d to main-
The Protestant minority, on the other h <“ f 0range
tain the English connection, XH Tp a rhamTn T D ubl,n, of
as their protector. James called l a Parliament ^ It
which nearly every member was a R°man C d ived
repealed the Act of Settlement of 1661, ^ a ' of Attainder
English settlers of their lands. It passed an Act ot Atta
THE REVOLUTION
239
against about two thousand three hundred leading Protestants,
all of whom were to be put to death, and it was understood that
this list might be followed by others. But it was necessary to
catch these men before hanging them, and the threatened Pro-
testants, who had lost their lands and were in danger of losing
their lives, fled to Derry and Enniskillen, in the province of
Ulster. At these two places they offered the most determined
resistance to the efforts of the French and Irish to capture them.
The walls of Derry were crumbling and the authorities of the
town were in secret touch with the enemy. But a clergyman,
George Walker, took charge of the defence and inspired the
townsfolk to resist until the boom across the Foyle was shattered
by relief ships from London. The siege was then raised. The
defenders of Enniskillen made a sortie and defeated their
opponents at the Battle of Newton Butler. Meanwhile, William
had sent a small force under Marshal Schomberg to Ireland.
It encamped on the banks of the River Boyne, and in 1690
William himself crossed over with reinforcements and assumed
command. James with his French and Irish troops opposed
his son-in-law, and for the first and last time the two Kings
were face to face in battle. James was defeated and fled to
Dublin, whence by way of Kinsale he returned to France. The
outcome of the struggle in Ireland was now assured. William
remained for a time in command of the Protestant forces, but
at length he left the task of completing the conquest to Ginkel
and Churchill. Nearly two years elapsed before the stubborn
resistance of the Irish, who were reinforced by the arrival of
another French army under Saint-Ruth, was overcome, but
with the capture of Limerick in 1691 the struggle ended.
By the Treaty of Limerick a reasonable settlement of the
points at issue was reached. The Irish who had fought
against William were offered the choice of entering his service,
laying down their arms, or going abroad. Many chose this
last course, and Louis XIV had an Irish Brigade in his army
for many years. It was also arranged that Roman Catholic
worship should be permitted to the same extent as in the reign
of Charles H. But m this matter it was afterwards held that
Gmkel had exceeded his powers. In 1695 a meeting of the
Irish Parliament, containing mostly Protestants, was held,
and it Passed a number of laws which greatly restricted the
liberty hitherto enjoyed by Roman Catholics.
The Revolution is regarded, and rightly so, as one of the
a
240
THE STUART PERIOD
outstanding events in English history. It is to be noted,
however, that it is equally important in the general history of
Europe. Since the days of Elizabeth, England and France
had been on generally friendly terms, since both were opposed
to Spain. While England had been one of the leading Reforma-
tion powers, Spain had been the champion of the Roman
Catholic Church. But Spain was declining, and for a time
the function of extending the Counter-Reformation seemed to
be falling on France, with England, under the later Stuarts,
to assist her. But the Revolution changed all that. With
the Dutch Stadtholder as King of England nothing but enmity
could exist between England and France. England joined the
League of Augsburg, which now became a reality, and entered
the war which followed. No other course was possible.
Louis was determined to restore James if he could, and Eng-
land was bound to fight to keep James out. The hostility of
England and France towards each other which began with the
fall of the Stuarts continued for a century and a quarter.
During this period the two countries were involved in seven
great wars, and though, apparently, various circumstances led
to these wars, they were really due to the same fundamental
cause throughout. France was the leading industrial country
in Europe in the time of Louis XIV, but the industries of this
country were developing, and she wanted new markets for her
goods and new sources from which to draw raw materials.
The eighteenth century saw a conflict between England and
France for mastery at sea, in trade, and in colonial empire.
If the Revolution of 1689 was the signal for the beginning
of a struggle with France for supremacy, at home it marked
the close of another struggle for supremacy. The great
question which dominated affairs in the Stuart period was
settled at last. There was no longer any question of superiority
as between Crown and Parliament, for the Revolution decided
it. Parliament had deposed a king and had appointed another
and had laid down conditions on which the new king should
accept the crown. No longer could an English king claim
Divine Right, for it was evident that he was appointed not by
God but by Parliament. That the king was a highly-place
official who could be removed by those who had appointe
him could no longer be denied. The supremacy of Parliament
was complete. _ , n f
During the century the position and powers of Parham
THE REVOLUTION
241
itself had changed to a remarkable degree. At the beginning
of the period it possessed only limited powers. Its consent
was necessary to changes in law and direct taxation, but its
right to discuss various aspects of national policy was disputed,
and its very existence was dependent on the goodwill of the
king. Since the Revolution it has been able to express and
enforce its will in all matters of national concern. It has con-
trolled national income and national expenditure. It has been
an essential part of the machinery of government and has
secured the right of meeting regularly — for if in any year
Parliament should fail to meet, the Army Act would not be
renewed and the army would come to an end, and there would
be no grants of public money to carry on the government for
the year. From being relatively unimportant in 1603, it has
become incontestably the supreme power in the State since 1689.
The Revolution is a landmark in the history of religion in
this country. Until 1689 it was still assumed that all English-
men were, or should be, of the same religion, and penalties
were imposed on those who would not conform to the religion
of the State. But after the Revolution the right of English-
men to choose their own form of religion was recognised, and
the Government no longer attempted to preserve ecclesiastical
unity.
From very early times it had been held that Church and
State in England were one. They were two aspects of the same
thing. All Englishmen belonged to the National Church, and
it was regarded as the duty of an Englishman to accept the
religion which the State put before him. To doubt it or to
refuse to accept it was a kind of disloyalty. This view had
prevailed throughout the Tudor and Stuart periods when
various changes were being made. Except for the one great
reform made by Henry VIII, the establishment of royal in
place of papal supremacy over the Church, these changes were
not very deep, and Englishmen were expected to obey their
kmg m this as in other matters. But the stubborn refusal of
the Puritans to be reconciled with the Established Church
showed that to try to maintain unity was a hopeless task, and
since the Revolution the Church of England, instead of being
the State, has become a religious society within the State.
The Revolution was not without its effect upon the future
relationship of the three kingdoms which were included in the
British Isles. They were still separate, but Scotland had
242
THE STUART PERIOD
followed England's lead in the Revolution, and this fact paved
the way to a definite union on fair terms between England and
Scotland within twenty years. Ireland, on the other hand,
supported James, and was defeated, with the result that she
was kept in a position of subordination for more than a century,
and when at length a union was effected its terms were by no
means satisfactory to the Irish.
Important though the Revolution of 1689 was, it is possible
to overstate its significance. It was not the first time that
a king had lost his crown. On the earlier occasion, in 1649,
the king had lost his head as well, but the experiment then
tried, of putting a king to death, had not worked well. It
had been followed by a reaction, and the restoration ot the
deposed line. Englishmen in 1689 were merely repeating
what had been tried before, but they were trying at the same
time to profit by the mistake of their predecessors. On this
occasion they deprived the king of his crown only, and let
him pass into exile instead of to death. The fact that various
efforts made in the next sixty years completely failed to restore
the Stuart line indicates the greater wisdom of the more
merciful policy.
CHAPTER XLII
THE WAR OF THE LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG
It has been stated already that the aggressions of Louis XIV
had caused great alarm among neighbouring powers, and that
the League of Augsburg had been formed in 1686 to oppose
him. Although the League included the Emperor, Spain,
Holland, and Brandenburg, it was too weak to be effective.
Indeed, William’s purpose in accepting the invitation to Eng-
land was to secure the adhesion of this country to the League,
which only then could become a menace to the French Kong.
Louis, for reasons explained in an earlier chapter, refrained
from attacking Holland, and began the war in 1688 by invading
the Palatinate. The success of William's expedition and the
flight of James from England to France caused him to withdraw
his troops and devote his resources to the work of undoing
what had happened. The campaign of 1689 in Ireland may,
therefore, be regarded as the opening move in the war between
France and the League — a war which is sometimes called the
War of the English Succession.
It says a good deal for French strength that Louis was able,
undismayed, to face a combination of all the other powers of
Europe. His army was large, well organised, and undefeated.
France was prosperous, and had a much larger population than
any of her enemies — nearly as large, perhaps, as the combined
populations opposed to her. But until Louis' reign the French
navy had been small. Colbert, Louis' minister, had planned
the building of a fleet, but it was doubtful how far the infant
French navy could hold its own against the combined squadrons
of the maritime powers. The matter was put to the test in
1690, when at the Battle of Beachy Head the English and
Dutch fleets under Admiral Herbert, Lord Torrington, were
defeated by the French under Tourville. The English left
the p^unt of the fighting to the Dutch, who were severely
mauled, while Torrington retreated with his ships to the shelter
of the Thames. It is not a creditable incident in English naval
243
THE STUART PERIOD
244
annals, and for a time William's throne was in grave danger.
If Louis had known how to use his victory he might have
achieved his object of restoring James. But the French had
just been defeated in Ireland. Time was lost, and nothing was
ready for an invasion of England. By 1692, at the stubbornly
contested Battle of La Hogue, Russell avenged the former defeat
by overcoming Tourville. The English fleet again commanded
the Channel and the danger of invasion was past. English
commerce, however, suffered at the hands of French warships
and privateers. A very heavy blow was struck by the French
in 1693, when the Smyrna fleet was destroyed. A large number
of vessels trading with the Levant left England in convoy,
adequately escorted. The danger of attack from the French
was supposed to be past when the Bay of Biscay was left behind,
and only four frigates continued to accompany the fleet beyond
Cape Finisterre, the remainder of the escorting ships returning
to England. But a French fleet appeared and attacked the
convoy. The four frigates fought gallantly, but hopelessly,
and nearly all the merchant vessels were captured or sunk.
In 1694 a gallant but unsuccessful attempt was made to
capture Toulon. The English fleet had no base in the Mediter-
ranean, and, fighting so far from home, with no chance ot
receiving reinforcements, it could hardly make a sustaine
attack or maintain a blockade. . . . - • h
The fighting on land took place mainly in the bpanisn
Netherlands (modern Belgium). Louis' f° rces were com-
manded by Luxemburg, a competent general, who, however,
was not so brilliant as Turenne and Condi, the French leaders
in earlier wars, had been. But Luxemburg had the assistance
of Vauban, a great military engineer, who was a genius in tn
art of fortification. Luxemburg defeated his enemies at th
Battle of Fleurus in 1690. In 1692 William was free to com-
mand the allied forces in the Netherlands. He was not a
great general, but he possessed to the full the qoates
his race. If he was slow he was also patient; if he was no
brilliant he was obstinate. Though he was defeated he g
way but Me, and speedily re-formed his scattered rante.
In 1602 the French captured Namur and defeated Wi llia ™
the Bank of Steinkirk In the next year they followed up
this victory by securing another at Landen, or Neerwin •
But William's forces withdrew in good order on each oc '
and thcySd not withdraw far. In 1695 William retrieved his
Dmbtin
246 THE STUART PERIOD
losses by the recapture of Namur. It was the greatest military
exploit of his life, it restored the confidence of his troops and
of the English nation in his military capacity, and it con-
vinced Louis that out-and-out victory was not to be expected.
The French King, therefore, was willing to treat for peace,
which was concluded in 1697 by the Treaty of Ryswick.
Louis agreed to give up everything which he had taken since
the Treaty of Nijmegen, in 1678, except Strassburg (captured
in 1681), and he agreed to recognise William as King of Great
^The peace thus made was hardly in Louis' favour. The
conquests which he agreed to give up had been made m the
Rhine region at the expense of various princes of the Holy
Roman Empire. For the second time his attempt to chastise
the Dutch had resulted in complete failure, not an acre ot
Dutch territory passing to his rule. And this time he had to
accept the humiliation of recognising his principal enemy as
King of Great Britain in place of his cousin James. * et L
had not been decisively defeated. Though his fleet had bee
checked at La Hogue and though the fortress of Namur had
fallen, his resources were large, and he was capable of continuing
the struggle indefinitely. But Louis saw that a greater quests
was rising above the European horizon. The succes ;> 10 " .
the throne of Spain would soon demand attention, and he
desired to end this wearisome and profitless war
devote his whole energies to the task of securing P
cf Spain.
CHAPTER XLIII
THE RULE OF WILLIAM III
Throughout his reign William III experienced more than
ordinary difficulty in ruling his new country. He was a
foreigner, the ruler of a nation with which England had fought
three wars within the memory of many living men. He was
silent and ungracious in manner and his health was rarely
good, and he made no effort to combat the unpopularity which
he felt to exist for him in England. He disliked England and
accepted its crown only as a means of securing its alliance.
Yet having taken upon himself the responsibility of ruling
England he honestly tried to do his duty to the country, and
he frankly recognised the limitation imposed by Parliament
upon his power.
Not the least of his troubles arose from the fact that the
exiled King still had many supporters in England. Some who
had assisted in the expulsion of James now seemed to feel that
things had gone too far, and they schemed for his return. The
Tory party as a whole did not wish for James's restoration,
though probably it would not actively have opposed it. But
notions of Divine Right were not extinct, and the extreme
Tories were disloyal to William and kept up secret com-
munication with James. These men, known as Jacobites,
were ready at any time to involve themselves in any plot
which should have for its object a second Stuart restoration.
Many of the Church clergy felt themselves to be in a
difficulty. They had taken the oath of allegiance to Janies,
recognising him as head of the Church. They were now
called upon to take an oath recognising William, and some of
them objected that they could not do so consistently with their
former oath, since James was still alive. Those who refused
were expelled from their posts in the Church. These Non-
Jurors included Archbishop Sancroft and about half the
bishops, in addition to a few hundreds of the parish clergy.
New appointments were made, Tillotson becoming Archbishop
248
THE STUART PERIOD
of Canterbury. The fact that the lay people of the Church
were not called upon to take the oath probably accounts for
the fact that few of them supported the deprived clergy. These
latter, however, were not satisfied with having made their
protest. They regarded themselves as the true Church of
England, and continued the succession of clergy by fresh ordina-
tions of bishops, priests, and deacons from time to time,
so that the Non-Juring movement did not die out for nearly
a century. These clergy were supported by wealthy Jacobites,
in whose families they lived as chaplains, tutors, librarians,
and secretaries. . . . ,
The invitation to William had borne the signatures of both
Whigs and Tories, and the settlement of the Crown in the
Convention had been the work of both parties. It seemed good
to William, therefore, to choose his ministers from the leading
men of both parties, so that he might be regarded as King ot
the whole nation, and not of one party only. This plan was
continued for the first half of the reign. But by 1694 William
was beginning to realise that the Tories were only lukewarm
in supporting him and the war and that he must look to
the Whigs alone for assistance. During the next two yzarsmz
Tories were, one by one, replaced by Whigs, and by 1696
the whole of the ministry was Whig. This change of attitude
on the King's part is indicated by his accepting the Triennial
Act in 1694, by which no Parliament was to last more than
three years. Hitherto he had refused to agree to this proposal,
which was supported by the Whigs.
Queen Mary took no active part in political life, lcavl [}| .
actual rule to her husband. She did not
and her death from smallpox in 1694 caused the most profound
gr The° facolftes Remained active, and plots were hatched
from time to time against William. The most dangerous of
these was the Assassination Plot of 1696. It was iscov ^
and Sir John Fenwick, a notable Jacobite concerned in it, was
put to death. For the moment William was ll “ s P p “ ;
and when a Bond of Association was sanctioned by Parhament
for his protection thousands of Englishmen of all classes
"Thfexpenses of the war were heavy, and Parliament was
called upon to make much larger grants of “®“ cy Montag u,
before. William's finance minister was Charles Montag ,
249
THE RULE OF WILLIAM III
afterwards Earl of Halifax. In 1692 Montagu secured the
consent of Parliament to a land tax of four shillings in the pound
on the annual value of land, and in spite of the opposition
of Tory landowners this tax was for many years an important
feature of the country’s financial system. More money was
required, however, and Montagu resorted to borrowing. The
new loans differed from those which had been raised by earlier
kings in that there was no undertaking to repay them within
a limited period. But the interest on them was guaranteed
by Parliament, and they are regarded as the beginning of the
National Debt. In 1693 Montagu borrowed one million
pounds, promising interest at eight per cent, and in 1694 the
original lenders were allowed to form a bank, known as the
Bank of England, which was given the special privilege of
managing future loans on behalf of the Government. The
arrangement proved to be a great success. By the end of
the reign the debt amounted to £16,000,000. The Bank of
England was, however, for many years regarded as a Whig
institution, and the efforts of the Tories to establish a Land
Bank in opposition to it, in 1698, failed. In 1695 the coinage,
which was much worn and clipped, was called in and replaced
by a new issue of coins with milled edges. The expense of
the change was heavy, but within a few years the beneficial
effect on the country’s trade more than counter-balanced the
cost which had been incurred.
From 1696 to 1700 William's ministers were Whig. This
was the first time that a ministry composed of men of one
party only had been formed. The leading men of this 44 Junto "
were Russell, the victor of La Hogue, now Earl of Orford,
Somers, Lord Chancellor, Montagu, who became Earl of
Halifax in 1700, and Wharton. But as time went on William
relied to an increasing extent on his Dutch friends. He knew
that many leading men in England were in touch with James.
Even some of the Whigs were suspect in this matter. William
could trust the Dutch.
After the Peace of Ryswick in 1697 the House of Commons
contained a Tory majority. In the Mutiny Act of 1698
Parliament reduced the strength of the army to ten thousand
men, and in 1699, by insisting on the departure of the Dutch
Guards to Holland, to seven thousand. To the King these
reductions were disastrous, for he, as well as Louis, regarded the
peace as a mere preliminary to the greater war of the Spanish
l
THE STUART PERIOD
250
Succession, which was bound to come at no distant time. The
dismissal of his guards was too much for even his patience,
and he prepared to abdicate. If his guards must go he would
accompany them. Only the urgent entreaties of his ministers
caused him to reconsider the matter.
By 1700 William realised that a Whig ministry could no
longer carry affairs on while the majority of the House of
Commons was Tory, and he replaced the Junto by Tory
ministers who held office till 1702. Shortly before his death
a new House of Commons, containing Whigs and Tories in
almost equal numbers, was elected, and he dismissed some of
the Tory ministers and put Whigs in their place.
* In the development of the British Constitution the reign of
William III is important on account of two constitutional
principles which came to the front. Neither was regarded as
finally settled, and many years elapsed before they were taken
for granted. It was found by experience that it was difficult
for the country to be ruled by a mixed ministry, and the
principle of Party Government came into being. And it was
also found that the choice of the party from which ministers
must be selected could not be left to the king; it must be the
party which commanded a majority in the House of Commons.
Yet these principles must not be regarded as of the same kind
as those in the Bill of Rights, as, for example, that the sovereign
must not be a Papist. These are legal rules; they form part of
the Law of the Constitution. Those stated above are not rules
of law; they are called conventions, and they form part of the
Custom of the Constitution. To disregard them would be
to break no law, but they have come to be recognised so com-
pletely that if they were not observed the Government could
not be continued on the system which exists to-day. Without
them the British Constitution would be something totally
unlike what it is at present. . .
Before William's death the question of the succession to tne
throne caused some anxiety. Apparently it had been amply
provided for in the Bill of Rights. But Mary was dead and
had left no children. It was most unlikely that William would
remarry. The succession, therefore, could be carried on only
by the Princess Anne and her children. She had married
Prince George of Denmark in 1680, and had had a very large
number of children, all of whom died young. Only one ot
her children seemed to have any chance of growing up. rie
251
THE RULE OF WILLIAM III
was bom in 1689 and was named William, after the King, who
conferred on him the title of Duke of Gloucester. But he
died in 1700, and it became certain that at the death of Anne
the succession as arranged in the Bill of Rights would fail.
Further provision was necessary, and the Act of Settlement
was passed in 1701. It conferred the crown, after the death
of Anne, upon Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hanover, a
daughter of that Elector and Electress Palatine whose troubles
were so prominent during the Thirty Years War, and a grand-
daughter of James I, and, after her, upon her descendants,
being Protestants. The Act stated emphatically that the
sovereign must be Protestant, and must be in communion
with the Church of England, and further stated that a Papist,
or any person married to a Papist, should be excluded. It
may be noted that Sophia was not the only child, nor was she
the eldest child, of her parents. But others had embraced the
Roman Catholic faith, and she was selected because she had
not. The Act of Settlement was, however, badly drawn up,
and the rules about the sovereign's religion were not nearly so
complete and effective as they were meant to be. The sovereign
was required to take an oath that he was a Protestant when he
ascended the throne, but there was nothing in the Act to prevent
his subsequent conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Then,
too, although the sovereign might not marry a Papist, the Act
did not say how the religion of the king’s wife was to be
ascertained, for the lady was not called upon to make any
declaration or to take any oath on the matter.
The Act might have ended with the new provisions for the
succession and the safeguards against the accession of a Roman
Catholic. But the opportunity was taken of enacting that
judges should not be dismissed from their posts except for
gross misconduct. Hitherto the judges of the Courts of King’s
Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer had been appointed by
the king, and were liable to dismissal by him at any time. It
is evident that if cases came before the judges in which the
king was interested (and many such cases did come before
them during the Stuart period), their decisions might be
influenced by the fact that the king could remove them if their
judgments were against his wishes. Occasionally, judges had
been dismissed by Stuart kings, and it is possible that, now and
then, a judgment was affected by the judge’s fear of dismissal.
But it is probable that these instances were few. Nevertheless,
THE STUART PERIOD
252
\ the system was unsatisfactory, and the Act of Settlement
made the judges independent by depriving the king of the
right to dismiss them. Since that time it has been an exceed-
ingly difficult thing to remove a judge. Both Houses of Parlia-
ment must send a petition to the king, praying for his dismissal,
and since, therefore, the consent of King, Lords, and Commons
is required, the proceedings amount practically to the passing
of an Act of Parliament. A judge may be removed also as
the result of impeachment, or because he is convicted of a
serious crime, or because an Act of Parliament is passed for his
removal. But actually these things never happen nowadays.
Certain other provisions of the Act of Settlement must
receive attention. The king was not to leave Great Britain
without consent of Parliament. England was not to be bound
to go to war in defence of the sovereign’s foreign possessions.
Matters of State were to be transacted in the full Privy Council.
No person holding a pension, or a salaried post, under the
Crown, was to sit in the House of Commons. Aliens were
not to be given grants of land, nor were they to be members
of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament, nor
were they to hold any place of trust. At first sight these
rules appear to be reasonable, in view of the fact that England
was to have a line of Hanoverian kings (the descendants of
Sophia). It would seem reasonable that the king should live
in England and not Hanover, and that England should not
be involved in Hanoverian wars, and that English and not
Hanoverian ministers should be employed in the government
of the country. If King William had protested against these
clauses in the Act, it is certain that the above explanation would
have been put forward. But it is not the true explanation.
These clauses were meant to be insults to William. The real
meaning of this part of the Act was: “We have had a king who
spends much of his time abroad; we have been dragged mto
a war in defence of Holland; our king has put his trust Dutc ”
menand not in Englishmen; we will see that these things do
not happen in future.” That this was the real ^on for the
insertion of these provisions is clear from the fact that after
William’s death, and before George I came to the
several of them were repealed or modified.
1 In conclusion it is to be observed that this great Act , winch
remains the basis on which the present line of kings retains
the throne, was passed by a Tory Parhament, and when a lory
THE RULE OF WILLIAM III 253
ministry was in office. The need for making further provision
for the succession afforded an opportunity for considering
whether the Stuarts might be restored. The fact that not
even a Tory Parliament with a Tory ministry thought of doing
this shows that the nation as a whole had made up its mind
on this question, and that, apart from foreign help, the House
of Stuart had finally lost the English throne.
Early in 1702 William died. His health, never sound, had
been failing for some time, and an accident which would not
have been serious for a stronger man proved fatal to him. He
was a great king, a great statesman, and a great man. Much
of his unpopularity was due to his being misunderstood. He
was regarded by many of his subjects as prone to subordinate
English interests to those of Holland. But he saw, what they
failed to see, that the interests of the two countries were
identical, and that for the safety and independence of both it
was necessary to crush the power of Louis XIV.
CHAPTER XL IV
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION
One of the most remarkable facts in the history of the latter
part of the seventeenth century is the decline of the power
of Spain. This great monarchy had been exhausted by nearly
ninety years of almost continuous warfare (1572-1659), under-
taken against Protestant peoples in the interests of the Church
of Rome. Between 1659 and 1700 Spain was involved in three
wars with Louis XIV — the War of Devolution, 1667; the
Dutch War, 1673-8; and the Augsburg War, 1689-97. (All
these have been already referred to.) The fact that she drew
apparently inexhaustible supplies of treasure from the New
World, while it was immediately useful in the wars, prevented
the development of Spanish internal resources, and her
industries and commerce were insignificant by comparison
with those of other countries of western Europe. The country
was still medieval in character. Nobles and clergy enjoyed
excessive privileges, and the peasantry was down-trodden.
The activity of the Inquisition had succeeded in exterminating
all traces of Protestantism, and priests and monks swarmed
in all parts of the land. An energetic and far-seeing king might
have revived his country, restored her finances, developed her
trade and industry, and cut down ecclesiastical and feudal
privileges. But Charles II, King of Spain from 1665 to 1 700,
was a weakling in body and mind. He has been described as
an imbecile. If he had been more definitely insane he might
have been replaced by a Regent, to the great ad y an * age ° r
country. But his case may more truly be described as one o
“arrested development.” Throughout his life he
mind of a child. He was mamed but had no chddren ^d
the question of succession to his throne was quite tmcertaim
For many years the leading kings and statesmen of Europe
had known that at his death the question would call for settle
ment, and as time went on and his health, never g
worse, the matter crept nearer and nearer to the troni.
254
The Spanish Empire in 1700
256 THE STUART PERIOD
was probably this fact, rather than any consciousness of defeat,
that led Louis XIV to agree to the Peace of Ryswick in 1697.
In spite of the fact that it had fallen on evil days the Spanish
monarchy was still a prize well worth winning, and under an
able king it might quickly recover much of its former greatness.
Its possessions were more extensive than those of any other
country in the world. In the Old World, beside Spain itself,
the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, certain places,
known as the Tuscan ports, on the west coast of Italy, the
islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the Balearic Islands, and some
places on the north coast of Africa belonged to it, so that the
western Mediterranean was almost a Spanish lake. The Spanish
Netherlands (modern Belgium) and some Rhenish territories
in the Holy Roman Empire were also included in the list of
Spanish possessions in Europe. Altogether, the Spanish King
had four capital cities in Europe — Madrid, Naples, Milan, and
Brussels. In the New World, Mexico, Central America, and
most of the West Indies and South America were included in
the Spanish Empire, while the Philippine Islands off the
south-east coast of Asia also belonged to it.
'^Reference to the genealogical table on page 351 will show
that though Charles II had no children and no brothers he had
Wo sisters, of whom the elder, Maria Theresa, had married
Louis XIV, King of France, and the younger, Margaret
Theresa, had married the Emperor Leopold I. The Dauphin,
therefore, would seem to have had the best claim to succeed
Charles II, and if he did so the Spanish monarchy with all its
possessions would be added to the kingdom of France, already
too powerful. But when Maria Theresa married Louis XIV
she renounced, for herself and her descendants, all claim to
the Spanish throne. This would seem to dispose °f the
Dauphin’s claim, but it was pointed out that the treaty which
included this renunciation also provided for the payment of
a dowry, which in fact had never been received. If the
renunciation was in consideration of the payment of the dowry
it would not hold good, because of the non-payment of the
money. The French lawyers argued that this was the case;
they also contended that succession to the throne of bpain
was by “indefeasible hereditary right,” which meant that no
renunciation could hold good, and that no person in the direct
line of succession could forfeit his right by any such document.
In order to diminish the opposition with which a rrencn
257
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION
succession in Spain would certainly be viewed by other powers
the Dauphin passed his claim on to his second son, Philip,
Duke of Anjou (as his eldest son, Louis, Duke of Burgundy,
ought in due course to obtain the throne of France). From the
point of view of strict hereditary right the French claim was
clearly the best.
Charles II's younger sister, Margaret Theresa, who married
the Emperor Leopold I, had a daughter, Maria Antonia, who
married Maximilian Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, and had a
son, Joseph Ferdinand, Electoral Prince of Bavaria, whose
claim was put forward in opposition to that of Anjou. (An
electoral prince is a prince next in succession to an Elector,
as a crown prince is next in succession to a king.) But Maria
Antonia had renounced her claim to the Spanish throne when
she married, and this would have been fatal to her son’s
prospects, had it not been contended that in making this
renunciation she had acted under compulsion from her father,
the Emperor. But if both renunciations were valid it was
necessary to go a generation farther back in the genealogical
table. Philip IV had two sisters, and, singularly enough, the
elder of these married a French king and the younger married
an Emperor. Anne of Austria married Louis XIII and became
the mother of Louis XIV, who, therefore, was personally
entitled to claim the Spanish crown through her. But Anne
of Austria renounced her claim upon marriage, while her
sister Maria, who married the Emperor Ferdinand III, made
no such renunciation. Her son, the Emperor Leopold I,
therefore claimed through her. He passed his claim on to
his second son, the Archduke Charles.
But the settlement of this question could not be determined
solely by genealogical considerations. If Anjou became King
of Spam he would evidently be entirely under the influence
and control of his grandfather, whose power henceforth would
be overwhelming. Such a succession would seriously disturb
the balance of power— the principle that no European state
ought to become so powerful as to be a danger to the rest of
Europe. A similar objection applied, though not to the same
extent, to the selection of the Archduke Charles, whose eleva-
tion to the Spanish throne would strengthen the Austrian
power unduly.
But to the succession of the Electoral Prince, Joseph Ferdin-
and, no such objection could be urged, for Bavaria, to which
THE STUART PERIOD
he was heir, was not a great European power. To summarise
the conflicting claims and arguments it may be said that the
strongest claim, genealogically, was that of Anjou; legally,
that of Charles; and politically, that of Joseph Ferdinand. The
fact that Joseph Ferdinand was a child, while the other two
were men, was to the advantage of his claim. If either Anjou
or Charles became King of Spain that country would receive
a foreign king. But Joseph Ferdinand might be brought up
in Spain as a Spaniard.
After the Peace of Ryswick in 1697 an attempt was made to
settle this question by agreement between Louis XIV and
William III, neither of whom was eager to embark upon a
war of which neither could foresee the result. As the out-
come of protracted negotiations they entered upon a Partition
Treaty in 1698, by which, on the death of Charles II, Joseph
Ferdinand was to become King of Spain (with the Spanish
Netherlands and the New World possessions), while the Arch-
duke was to receive Milan and Anjou was to have the kingdom
of Naples. The Spanish Netherlands would thus form a buffer
State between Holland and France, while the Austrian posses-
sion of Milan would prevent French expansion in Italy.
Neither the Emperor not the King of Spain was a party to
this treaty. But the Kings of England and France believed
that, while the Emperor might bluster, he would not by him-
self fight for his son's claim. The Spanish people, however,
were indignant at the idea of foreign kings partitioning their
empire, and Charles II made a will, in which he named Joseph
Ferdinand as heir to the whole of his dominions. Neither
the treaty nor the will became important, however, since in
1699 Joseph Ferdinand died of smallpox, and the work ol
negotiation had to begin again.
It was a more difficult matter to reach agreement this time,
since the accession of either the Archduke or the Duke of. Anjou
would seriously disturb the balance of power. But WOham
was determined to fight rather than permit Louis grandson
to become King of Spain, and Louis at length agreed I to he
crown passing to Charles. But he contended that both he
minor shares under the earl.er treaty ought now to go to PhthP-
William objected, however, that the possession b °' 1 N . a P CS
and Milan would make France unduly powerful m ItaJ*
and agreed to the proposal only on rendition that ^ n should
be exchanged for Lorraine, a province to the east of hranc ,
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION 259
whose Duke was to be transferred to Milan. The second
Partition Treaty was concluded on this basis in 1700. By
this time Charles II was dying, and great efforts were made to
secure a will from him. The Queen, Marie of Neuburg, was
working in the Austrian interest; but a few days before the
Spanish King’s death the Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal
Porto Carrero, took charge of the palace and kept the Queen
from the King's bedside. He succeeded in obtaining a will
which named Philip, Duke of Anjou, as heir to the whole of
the Spanish dominions. If Anjou refused the offer of the
Spanish crown the whole was to go to the Archduke Charles.
Charles II died, and in due course an ambassador reached
Paris with the formal offer of the Spanish crown to the Duke
of Anjou. The real decision rested, of course, with Louis XIV.
He had agreed to the Partition Treaty and every consideration
of honour pointed to his keeping it. But if he had refrained
from negotiating with William he would have had the whole
prize without any effort. And he might still have it if he
allowed his grandson to accept the offer now made to him.
Further, if he adhered to the treaty he might lose everything,
since the offer to Anjou would be withdrawn and would pass
to Charles, who could accept without hesitation, since the
Emperor had not been a party to the Partition Treaty. In
the end Louis accepted the will, and recognised his grandson
as King of Spain with the title of Philip V. The morning
following the announcement Louis and Anjou attended mass
in state, and the King of Spain took precedence of the King of
France, a procedure which was followed when foreign kings
were visiting the French court.
The English people for a time approved of Louis’s action.
They seemed strangely unable to realise the importance of
the matter. To W i ll i a m the French King’s decision seemed to
be a fatal blow. England evidently would not fight, and for
Holland alone, or with the Emperor, to declare war would be
suicidal. Louis lost little time in making use of his new power,
and edicts were issued which gave to French ships certain
trading rights in Spanish colonial ports. But in 1701 he made
a fatal mistake. James II died at St. Germain, and upon his
death Louis recognised his son, now a boy of thirteen, as King
of Great Britain. This gross violation of the Treaty of Ryswick,
in which he had recognised William, roused this country as
William by himself could never have done. It might be said
260
THE STUART PERIOD
that Louis was becoming accustomed to the breaking of
treaties. He was mistaken, however, in thinking that he could
place a king on the English throne as easily as on that of Spain.
Whigs and Tories alike were eager for war. Army and navy
were increased, and an Act of Attainder was passed against
the young “King” — the Pretender, as he was commonly called.
William seized the opportunity to dissolve Parliament. In the
new House of Commons there was almost a Whig majority,
and the King recalled some of the Whig ministers whom he
had dismissed in 1700. But on the eve of the outbreak of
war he died — not, however, before he had recommended
Marlborough to the Princess Anne for the chief command in
the coming war. William did not live to see the downfall of
his great enemy, but the darkest clouds were breaking. All
Europe was roused, and he realised that a war was beginning
in which Louis' power would at length be crushed.
In the War of the Spanish Succession there were other
questions which were calling for settlement. In an earlier
chapter it has already been pointed out that English merchants
desired to break down the close monopoly which Spain had
hitherto maintained over her colonial trade, and if, as seemed
likely, concessions were to be made to the French and not to
the English, there seemed to be no chance for England to
compete with France in trade and manufactures. The Levant
trade, too, needed attention. While most of the coastline or
the western Mediterranean was in French or Spanish hands,
and while the Barbary Corsairs from the north coast of Africa
raided the commerce of the Mediterranean a fleet in that sea
was urgently needed for the protection of English Levantine
trade. But a fleet needed a base, and one of the prime objects
of the war was to secure a naval station in the Mediterranean.
For these reasons the mercantile interest in this country
vigorously supported the war.
Louis XIV entered upon the war with high hopes. IMOugn
faced by a European alliance he was no longer friendless,
since the great Spanish monarchy was on his side, and he was
in addition supported by the Electors of Cologne and Ba Y^na.
He had, moreover, a strategic advantage over his enemies
possessing what are termed interior lines of communication.
Fighting took place in the Netherlands, in Italy, and in Spain.
Louis could move troops from one area to another mo
rapidly than his opponents. And he had the advantage o
26 i
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION
undivided control, while his enemies experienced the usual
disadvantages of an alliance — jealousies, half-hearted efforts,
and the like. He had at his disposal a band of experienced
marshals, though none of the genius of Turenne and Conde,
and his armies were well trained and undefeated.
The alliance against France and Spain included most of the
other European powers. England, Holland, and the Empire
formed its backbone, but the Electors of Brandenburg and
Hanover, both of them great military powers, afforded useful
support. The naval power of England and Holland was more
than a match for that of France and Spain. The greatest
advantage of the allies, however, lay in the genius of their
generals. The Duke of Marlborough was Captain-General of
both the English and Dutch armies, and Prince Eugene
commanded the Emperor’s forces.
The war in the Netherlands began in 1702. Though
Marlborough was entrusted with the command of the Dutch
army he was not given freedom to move as he thought fit, and
in the first year the Dutch Government would not allow him
to leave their frontier, as they feared French invasion. (Louis
was, of course, free to send his troops through the Spanish
Netherlands to the Dutch frontier.) In 1703 the position
was much the same, though Marlborough obtained Dutch
permission to move up the Rhine as far as Bonn, which he
captured. (Bonn was the capital of the Elector of Cologne,
who was forced to make peace.) But in 1704 Louis resolved to
send an army under Marshal Tallard from the upper Rhine
to the upper Danube; a junction was to be made with the
Elector of Bavaria, and their united forces were to march upon
Vienna, the Emperor's capital. With the capture of this city
it was expected that the Emperor would be forced to make
peace. Against this formidable plan opposition could be offered
only by the Austrian army under Eugene. Marlborough saw
the danger, and resolved to act without Dutch permission.
On the pretext of undertaking operations on the Moselle, a
tributary of the Rhine, he left the Dutch frontier and hastened
u ^ 5 cec * into South Germany where he intercepted
the French and joined Eugene. At the Battle of Blenheim
he inflicted a crushing defeat on the French and Bavarians,
and Marshal Tallard was taken prisoner. The Elector was
forced to make peace, and the Emperor was saved. Louis’
forces for the first time suffered defeat, while Europe rang with
262
THE STUART PERIOD
the fame of the English and their general. The whole aspect
of the war was changed. Marlborough, already a duke, was
rewarded with the grant of Blenheim Palace.
He was back on the Dutch frontier in 1705. No great
achievement marked this year; but in 1706 Marlborough
began the work of driving the French out of the Spanish
Netherlands. At the Battle of Ramillies he defeated Marshal
Villeroi, and the greater part of the Spanish Netherlands,
including Brussels, fell into his hands. Some of this territory
was recovered by the French in 1707, but they sustained a
third great defeat in 1708, when Marshal Vendome was over-
thrown at Oudenarde. France was now threatened with
invasion, and in the national peril Frenchmen of all classes
rallied to the support of the old King. Another army was
put in the field, and in 1709 the Battle of Malplaquet was
fought, in which Marlborough defeated Villars, though with
terrible losses. But the way to Paris lay open, and if other
circumstances had not occurred to prevent Marlborough s
further advance Louis must have suffered the humiliation or
witnessing the fall of his capital. T
Meanwhile the French had been driven out of Italy. A jJ
1706 Eugene defeated Marsin at the Battle of Turin, and both
Naples and Milan fell into Austrian hands.
In Spain itself the success of the allies was less complete.
An English fleet under Sir George Rooke and Sir Cloudesley
Shovell captured Gibraltar in 1704. The Archduke Charles,
who called himself and was recognised by his allies “
Charles III, took Barcelona, which remained his headquarter:
during the war. The province of Catalonia supported him,
but the rest of Spain was for Philip V. In I7 ° 6 r ^ h short
marched to Madrid, which he captured, and thus for a short
time all the four Spanish capitals in Europe were m the hands
of the allies. But Charles was forced to retire from Madrid
and in 1707 the allies were defeated at Almanza. In .7
fleet and army under General Stanhope captured Minorca.
In 1710 Charles again entered Madrid but was again fore
Uave 7 U, and further defeats of his forces left the balance m
Spain to his disadvantage. His only real hold was upon
Ca On°sS£al occasions during the war efforts were made to
negotiate a peace between England and FrMce ’ /^attitude
years these efforts failed entirely on account of the atutua
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION 263
of the Whig party in England. In their eagerness to make the
Protestant succession absolutely secure the Whigs wished to
see Louis XIV crushed, and the only terms they would con-
sider were the abdication of Philip V and the recognition of
the Archduke as King of Spain. “No peace without Spain/’ •
was the Whig motto. In 1706 Louis offered peace on the basis
of the second Partition Treaty. His offer was rejected, and
he was made to understand that terms agreeable in 1700,
before the war, were no longer acceptable in 1706, after
important victories had been gained. In 1708 he asked for
peace, and offered to withdraw recognition of his grandson as
King of Spain. But Philip was in actual possession of Spain,
and if these terms were agreed upon the allies would have to
continue the fight in order to dislodge him. They demanded,
therefore, that Louis should join the Grand Alliance against
Philip. But the old King replied that if he must fight he would
fight for, and not against, the King of Spain, and the negotia-
tions broke down. Once more, after Malplaquet, Louis made
an offer. This time he went so far as to offer to help the allies
with supplies of money against Philip, but he would not join
the alliance, and again the effort to establish peace failed.
But things were working out better for Louis than he knew.
The Whigs, who were opposed to all compromise, fell from
power in 1710 (for reasons which will be explained in a later
chapter). A Tory ministry, willing to treat for peace, entered '
office. Marlborough was removed from the command of the
army in 1711 and was replaced by the Duke of Ormond, who
was instructed to do little or nothing.
The Emperor Leopold I died in 1705 and was succeeded by
his son, the Archduke Joseph, as Joseph I. But in 1711 he
also died, leaving no sons, so that he was followed by his
brother, the Archduke Charles, who became Emperor as
Charles VI, (The Empire was still nominally elective, but
the Electors invariably chose the person next in hereditary ,
succession.) The election of Charles to the Imperial throne \
completely altered the whole aspect of the Spanish question,
it might well be contended that, if he became King of Spain as
well, the balance of power would be endangered to a greater
degree than if Philip retained the Spanish crown. And so,
m the face of these new facts, the combatants in 171 2 opened
negotiations at Utrecht that led to the Peace of Utrecht in 1713.
It was agreed that Philip V should be recognised as King of
264 THE STUART PERIOD
Spain, but that the crowns of France and Spain should never
be united. To the criticism that the allies had fought great
battles and won great victories for Charles it must be replied
that they had fought for the preservation of the balance of
power, and that that object was now better served in this way
than by putting the new Emperor on the Spanish throne. This
settlement, moreover, had the advantage of giving to the
Spanish people the King they preferred, a consideration which
probably weighed very little with the diplomats at Utrecht.
The Emperor was to be compensated for the loss of his
expected Spanish crown by receiving the kingdom of Naples,
with Milan, Sardinia, and the Tuscan ports. Thus was
established in Italy that Austrian power which was not expelled
finally until the middle of the nineteenth century. Charles
was also to receive the Spanish Netherlands, which henceforth
became the Austrian Netherlands, and formed a buffer state
between Holland and France for the security of the Dutch
republic. A number of fortresses in the Austrian Nether-
lands were to be garrisoned by Dutch troops, and the safety
of Holland was further guaranteed by a British pledge of
assistance in the event of attack.
The Duke of Savoy received the island of Sicily, with the
title of King, and the Elector of Brandenburg was recognised
as King; of Prussia, so that the peace brought about the
recognition of two new European monarchies. #
Great Britain retained her conquests of Gibraltar and
Minorca, and so was provided with naval bases in the Mediter-
ranean. Her claims to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and the
territory round Hudson Bay were recognised by the French.
Louis XIV recognised Anne as Queen of Great Britain, and
undertook to recognise any person who came to the British
throne under the Act of Settlement. The Chevalier de St.
George (the Pretender) was to be expelled from France. The
old King of France thus had to withdraw the recognition which
he had accorded to the Pretender in 1701 and to admit the
right of Great Britain to settle her own internal affairs.
Dunkirk, which Louis had purchased from Charles II, had
been strongly fortified during the war, and was capable ot
being used as a naval base against England. Louis now u ” der ‘
took to dismantle its fortifications. In this matter he did not
act straightforwardly, for while the work was going on men
were engaged in strengthening the defences of the neighbouring
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION
265
fishing village of Mardyck and in cutting a canal which would
connect the two places. Only upon strong British protest
being made was the work discontinued.
Certain trading arrangements between Great Britain and
Spain formed a very important feature of the peace. The
Spanish monopoly of South American trade was broken down
at last, and by a special agreement, known as the Asiento,
between the two countries, Great Britain was granted the
monopoly of the supply of negro slaves to Spanish colonies
for a space of thirty years. The number of negroes specified
in the treaty was four thousand eight hundred per annum,
but it might on certain conditions be exceeded. Another
trading concession was made to Great Britain. Every year
one ship of six hundred tons burthen was permitted to visit
Porto Bello, in Central America, for general trade. These
trading rights were granted by the British Government to the
South Sea Company, which was formed in 1711. It should
be added that there was every expectation that the trade then
begun would grow in volume. It was assumed that before
the expiration of thirty years the Asiento would be extended.
There was no time limit to the other concession, which was
looked upon as a mere beginning. In the course of the next
few years the right was seriously abused, as a number of other
ships attended the officially authorised ship, loading from her
and unloading on to her, so that the amount of trade done
'through her was much greater than was contemplated by the
treaty.
Certain criticisms of the Peace of Utrecht have already been
noticed, and other features call for mention. It has been
condemned as being a Tory peace following a Whig war, and
it seems certain that the Tories were eager to make peace for
their own purposes and that their political opponents would
have made arrangements more to the interest of this country.
The treaty is to be criticised also for what it omits as well as
for what it contains. The province of Catalonia had sup-
ported Charles throughout the war, and it was now yielded to
Philip without any guarantee of generous treatment. As a
matter of fact Philip V mvaded the province in the following
year and captured the city of Barcelona, whose unhappy
inhabitants suffered cruelly at his hands. Their neglect to
secure the safety of the Catalan people stands to the lasting
discredit of the allies. B
K
266
THE STUART PERIOD
But in other respects the Peace does not deserve the
unsparing condemnation to which it has been subjected. It
did not really endanger the balance of power, and for many
years its maintenance seemed to be the surest way of upholding
that principle. The fact that neither Philip nor Charles was
The Wap of the Spanish Succession
satisfied with the arrangements made, and that both, in the
years to come, tried to overthrow the treaty, indicates that it
held the scales fairly evenly between them. It gave to Spain
the King she preferred, and the territorial arrangements were
made on the basis of existing facts. The lands assigned to
Charles were already in his possession or in that of his allies.
The British gains were already in British hands. No extensive
evacuations were necessary in order to put the treaty into orce.
THE SPANISH SUCCESSION 267
The Peace of Utrecht marks the true end of the seventeenth
century, and the beginning of the eighteenth, in the history
of Europe. Wars of religion came to an end, and wars for trade
and colonial empire took their place. (The Spanish Succes-
sion War was to some extent a war of religion, since England
was fighting to maintain the Protestant Succession, and to
exclude a Roman Catholic king.) New monarchies rose to
importance. Above all, the Peace marks the final failure of
the plans of Louis XIV. He had ruled for a long time. Apart
from his minority, his effective reign covered those of four
English sovereigns. His pride was now humbled and the power
of France was shattered. Yet his people realised that he had
schemed for their glory as well as his own. There is something
tragic in the figure of the old King in his last days, defeated
and bereaved (for both his son and his grandson in the direct
line were dead), about to pass to the grave with the knowledge
that the work of his life had failed.
CHAPTER XLV
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
James VI, King of Scotland, became King of England in
succession to Elizabeth in 1603. No more than a personal
union was brought about, however. The two countries hence-
forth had the same King, but were in other respects as separate
as they had been before. Neither country desired closer
union, and the racial enmity which had existed for centuries
had not yet died out. The Scots feared that their land would
be absorbed by the larger kingdom; Englishmen viewed the
presence of Scottish courtiers and place-seekers in London
with annoyance and displeasure.
The King himself took a longer view than his subjects of
either kingdom, and realised that the interests of the two
countries were in the main identical. They were both confined
within the limits of one island; both had, in varying degree,
embraced the Reformation. If they could overcome their
dislike of each other they might become a great power; if they
wasted their strength in bickerings and preparations for war
they would be insignificant in European affairs. James
anticipated the establishment of union by taking the title of
44 King of Great Britain,” although as yet there was, politically,
no 44 Great Britain.” Realising that England was larger,
wealthier, more populous and more important than Scotland,
he aimed at making the latter country more like England than
it had been, and in the schemes for closer union which he was
considering he took England for his model. In particular he
wished to bring about the union of the Churches of Englan
and Scotland. The northern Church was Presbyterian; that
of England was Episcopalian. In 1610 he took a definite step
forward by re-establishing bishops in the Scottish Churc •
Their power was limited, and their presence was disliked oy
the people. But the first step had been taken.
Charles I attempted to go farther. Visiting Scotland in i &33
in company with Archbishop Laud, he exten c ^ P
268
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 269
of the bishops of the Church of Scotland and he increased
their number, while the Archbishop made arrangements for
the issue of a Prayer Book for use in Scotland. As has already
been stated, these measures provoked a storm of protest;
and in the General Assembly which was held at Glasgow in
1638 bishops and Prayer Book were abolished. A Covenant
was drawn up to which many thousands of Scots subscribed,
and this action was confirmed by a further General Assembly
at Edinburgh in 1640. The King's attempt to force his Scottish
subjects to obedience ended in his defeat in the second
Bishops' War, and the occupation of Northumberland and
Durham for some months by a Scottish army. In 1641,
however, Charles visited Scotland and secured the withdrawal
of the troops by yielding to Scottish wishes on the matters
in dispute, and when he departed he left the government in
the hands of a group of nobles, at the head of which was the
Duke of Argyll.
In 1643 the Scottish Government entered into the Solemn
League and Covenant with the English Parliament, and agreed
to assist it against the King in return for the English promise
to establish Presbyterianism in England. In 1644, for the
second time in the reign, a Scottish army invaded England.
It contributed materially to the overthrow of the King, who
surrendered to it in 1646. The war now being over, the Scots,
after giving Charles up to the English, returned to their own
country at the beginning of 1647. But at the end of that year
they entered into the Engagement with the King, by which
they undertook to replace him on the throne conditionally
upon his establishing Presbyterianism in England for three
years. Their third invasion of England, in 1648, was, there-
fore, on the King s behalf, and it met with much less success
than the earlier expeditions. The Scots were utterly defeated
by Cromwell in Lancashire, and were driven back across the
border in disorder.
Upon the execution of Charles I in 1649 the Scots prepared
to recognise his son as their King. An attempt by Montrose,
on behalf of Charles II, to overthrow the Government of
Argyll failed, and the gallant Earl was captured and put to
death. Charles II thereupon took the Covenant and was
acclaimed King and crowned at Scone. His position in Scot-
land was little _to his liking, for all real power remained in the
hands of the Presbyterian lords. Charles, however, intended
270
THE STUART PERIOD
at the earliest opportunity to make a bid for the English crown,
and Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland was intended to prevent
this. Though Leslie was defeated at Dunbar the King marched
south in 1651. The fourth Scottish invasion of England within
a dozen years ended in disaster at Worcester. The Presby-
terian Government was at last overthrown. Scotland became
part of the Commonwealth under Monk’s governorship.
More than three hundred years earlier Edward I had
conquered Scotland and united it to England for a short time,
but the indomitable spirit of the Scots, directed by such national
heroes as Wallace and Bruce, had prevented the arrangement
from lasting. The early Stuart kings had hoped for a more
peaceful union, and had failed to bring it about. The rebel
Cromwell had succeeded where kings had failed, and for nine
years Scotland was united to England. It was a bitter blow
to Scottish national pride, but the union provided compensa-
tions in other respects. Scottish religious freedom was
respected, and no persecution of Covenanters was attempted,
though the Episcopalian remnant was subjected to the same
restrictions as in England. The material prosperity of the
country advanced during the period. Scots enjoyed the
benefit of the Navigation Act, and were permitted to trade with
English colonies. Thus, the mercantile class in Scotland
enjoyed practical experience of the benefits of union with
England, and in years to come formed the nucleus of a party
which aspired to make that union permanent.
With the restoration of Charles II in England and Scotland
in 1660, every legal measure passed in the northern kingdom
since 1633 was rescinded. The union of the two kingdoms,
therefore, came to an end; and while this was gratifying to
Scottish national pride the material advantages of union were
lost at the same time. Scotland became a foreign country
under the Navigation Act of 1660, and Scottish commerce
declined. The Scottish Church became episcopal again, and
under the bishops the worship of the Covenanters was tor-
bidden. Under the harsh rule of John Maitland, Earl 01
Lauderdale, and of James Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews,
the Covenanters of the west and south-west were crueuy
persecuted for many years. . . .
The Revolution of 1689 brought only partial relief to t
northern kingdom. The news of the flight of James led
the rabbling of the clergy and the overthrow of the episcopa
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 271
system; and although the Scots had sent no invitation to
William III the Convention which met at Edinburgh offered
the crown to him and Mary on terms substantially identical
with those drawn up in England. But William accepted the
stipulation that the Church of Scotland should henceforth be
Presbyterian and the religious question was solved at last.
The revolt and suppression of the Highlanders, culminating
in the massacre of Glencoe, was less a reaction in favour of
James than an incident in inter-clan warfare.
But the Scots failed at the Revolution to insist on a satis-
factory settlement of their commercial relations with their
neighbours, and the merchants still felt that they were suffering
serious and unnecessary disadvantages. During the reign of
William a definite effort was made to establish a Scottish settle-
ment overseas, and to bring about the desired expansion of
Scottish commerce independently of England. A Darien
Company was formed, and its capital was contributed in large
or small amounts by people in all parts of Scotland. The
Company was to establish a settlement on the Isthmus of
Darien, to build ports on both the Atlantic and the Pacific
coasts of the isthmus, and to construct roads between these
ports. It was expected that by this means a new route to
Asia would be opened up. Merchandise would be conveyed
between Europe and Darien by ship, it would be carried across
the isthmus on pack-mules, and again be loaded on board
ship for the voyage across the Pacific. Ships and mules
would, of course, have cargoes and loads in both directions.
The promoters of the scheme believed that Darien would
become one of the most important commercial centres in the
world, and that Scotland would grow rich on the profits of
the enterprise. The scheme certainly had its good points.
It was, in essence, the Panama Canal scheme without the
canal. The great advantage of this projected route to the
East in place of the existing route round South Africa was that
it was mainly an east and west route while the other was
mainly north and south. It was longitudinal, the existing
route being latitudinal. Merchandise which is carried north
and south, crossing the equator twice, is subject to great changes
°u- ^ e ^ 1 P eratu y e hi the course of the voyage, and sometimes
this brings about deterioration in the quality of the goods.
But if cargo is to be carried between Europe and Asia in an
easterly or westerly direction there will be little variation in
THE STUART PERIOD
272
temperature, and quality will be preserved. Further, if the
plan had been brought to a successful issue it would have
assisted in the development of settlements on the west coast
of North and South America.
But the obstacles in the way had not been foreseen. The
distance to India by this route was greater than by the Cape.
It must be remembered that geographical distances, especially
across the Pacific, were not fully Imown at this time, and it
was generally believed that the world was much smaller than
modern calculation has proved it to be. The difficulty of
constructing mule-roads across the isthmus was not under-
stood. What appeared, on a small-scale map, to be a narrow
neck of land, proved to be a tract of country a hundred and
fifty miles wide, mountainous and rocky, with torrents crossing
the proposed route. The climate, too, was unsuitable for
white men, and they speedily fell victims to malaria and other
tropical diseases. (When the Panama Canal was comp eted
this difficulty was overcome by organised efforts, on a large
scale, to exterminate the mosquito.) But, above all, the site
of the projected colony was on Spanish territory, and tne
Spaniards naturally resented the establishment of an alien
settlement as much as the Scots would have resented a Spanish
settlement between the Forth and the Clyde. The rmal
story is soon told. The colony suffered from disease and
from Spanish attack, and proved an utter failure, and the money
invested in it was lost, to the impoverishment of those _ who
had contributed their savings to the scheme. The disaste
intensified Scottish feelings of bitterness towards England it
was felt that England had been without sympathy towards *e
scheme, and that if English assistance had been sent from
Jamaica and other West Indian islands the outcome m.gh
have been different. Such feelings, though nmural were no
logical or consistent, for the whole purpose of the adventur
had been to show the possibility of Scotland develop! ng
settlements without English assistance. But the effect
to strengthen the desire in Scotland for separation from
El The approaching failure of the succession, mdicated by the
death of the Duke of Gloucester m 1700, affectedl Scotland
well as England. Though the Scots had followed 1 thejngl ish
lead in i68g, they refused to imitate England by pass g .
act slmifar to the* Act of Settlement. Negotiations for the
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 273
union of the two countries were, indeed, entered upon in 1702,
but they failed completely. The opportunity for separation
seemed to have come; and in 1703 a Bill of Security was passed
through the Scottish Parliament, by which it was provided
that the person who succeeded to the throne of England at
the death of Queen Anne should not become sovereign of
Scotland unless free trade between the two countries was
arranged, and unless Scotland was left free to control her own
affairs. The Queen, acting on the advice of her English
ministers, vetoed the Bill, but the Scots passed it again in
1704. This renewed evidence of their determination to separate
from England came at the most critical moment of the war,
when Marlborough was marching in haste across Germany
to intercept Tallard. The position on the continent was so
serious and uncertain that England did not dare to risk a war
with Scotland, and accordingly Anne agreed to the Bill of
Security, which became law. But the Battle of Blenheim was
fought and won; the whole character of the war was changed,
and England felt free to act firmly towards her neighbour.
In 1705 England prepared for war with Scotland, showing
that she did not regard the Act of Security as a final settle-
ment of the succession question. Troops were massed near
the border, fortifications were strengthened, and trade in
certain important commodities was forbidden. At any time
hostilities might break out. Many of the Scots were seriously
alarmed by these preparations, and in the Scottish Parlia-
ment appeared a party known as the "Flying Squadron,"
which professed to occupy a middle position between those
who supported union and those who sought separation, but
which really threw its weight on the side of the union. In
1706, therefore, both countries agreed to the appointment of
commissioners to discuss the situation and to try to settle the
future relations of England and Scotland by agreement instead
of by war. The serious result of failure probably impressed
the negotiators, and their discussions were successful. They
agreed on terms of union, and both Parliaments passed an
Act of Union which came into force on 1st May, 1707.
England and Scotland were in future to form one kingdom,
to be known as Great Britain, with one sovereign, one Parlia-
ment, one army, and one flag, but with separate laws, law-
courts, and churches. Queen Anne was to be sovereign of
Great Britain and succession to the throne was to be as arranged
THE STUART PERIOD
274
in the English Act of Settlement of 1701, the Scottish Act of
Security being dropped. The Parliament of Great Britain was
to meet at Westminster, and Scotland was to be represented
in both Houses. The peers of Scotland were more numerous
in proportion to population than those of England, and it was
arranged that sixteen of them should be elected by their fellows
to represent the Scottish peerage in the House of Lords. This
election was to be renewed for each new Parliament. In the
House of Commons Scotland was to have forty-five members,
the number being determined by the ratio of Scottish to English
population. Scotland was to retain her ancient laws and law-
courts, though it was open to future Parliaments to make any
desired changes in Scottish law. The Scottish Church was
to remain Presbyterian. The flag of Great Britain was to
combine the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew. Free
trade was established between the two countries, and a sum
of about £400,000 was voted by the English Parliament to
pay off certain loans which had been raised in Scotland, and
to give some compensation to those who had suffered by the
Darien scheme.
That the union should achieve popularity at once was not
to be expected. It was accepted on both sides of the border
as the alternative to something worse. For many years bcots
feared its effects. In particular they feared for then ■ Churcn.
Twice in the last century bishops had been established in 1 ,
against the will of the nation, and it was less than twenty years
since they had for the second time been removed, inere
seemed a real possibility that the union would be followed by
a third attempt to restore episcopacy. The Jacobites, too,
whose hopes had run high as the result of the Act of Security,
were dismayed at
passage of the Act of Union. The Scottish people »
felt that their glory as a nation was departing, and that tn y
would in course of time be absorbed into the more numer
S °These forebodings have not been realised. The Scomsh
Church is still Presbyterian, and the Scottish peop
retain their separate national characteristics, The umo
proved successful to a remarkable degree, and both > d
have benefited by it. It is possible that neither of them face
with the hostility of the other, might have emerged victors
in the eighteenth-century struggle with France for
ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 275
and commercial supremacy, and that they might have remained
minor powers on the fringe of Europe. United, they forced
their way to the front rank, and in the next two centuries
built up a vast colonial empire. England no longer had to
watch her northern neighbour. Scotland was able to share
in English trade. The eighteenth century saw the industrial
development of the Clyde valley begin. And though it took
many years for national dislikes to disappear, the advantages
of the union have made themselves so manifest that nobody
to-day would dream of advocating a return to a separate
existence for England and Scotland.
CHAPTER XL VI
IRELAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
No serious attempt to exercise English authority over Ireland
was made until Tudor times, and the success which attended
the great O'Neill revolt at the end of the reign of Elizabeth
seemed to show that the English hold on the country was of
the slenderest character. But Lord Mountjoy vigorously
crushed the outbreak and restored order. Hugh O’Neill,
Earl of Tyrone, was pardoned, but his discontent revived
under the rule of Sir Arthur Chichester, James I's Deputy, and
he revolted again in 1607. He was forced to fly from the
country, and his lands were declared forfeit. Most °f his
fellow-tribesmen in the north of Ireland were dispossessed ol
their estates, and an extensive Plantation of Ulster was under-
taken in 1610. Large numbers of English and Scottish
settlers, most of them Puritan, occupied the O'Neill lands m
Ulster. This was the most completely successful of the lrisn
plantations, and the north of Ireland, from being the wildest
and least civilised part of the country, became, with its new
inhabitants, the most prosperous and loyal. Such ot tn
native Irish as remained there were kept in stern subjection.
Most of the dispossessed Irish, however, took sullen retuge
in Connaught. The effect of the Plantation of Ulster is to
be seen to this day in the circumstance that north-east ireianu
differs in race and religion from the rest of the country.
When Sir Thomas Wentworth became Lord Deputy in
1633 he found Ireland full of disorder. He restored peace
and administered justice throughout the land. He encouraged
the growth of flax and established the linen industry. £5
introduced into the Irish Church reforms similar to those whKji
Archbishop Laud was forwarding in England and Sco °
But the bulk of the Irish people were Roman Catholic, an
would have nothing to do with the Church of Irel ““’ JL
Wentworth did not go so far as to suppress Roman Catnon
worship. He established an Irish army, well drilled and w
276
IRELAND IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 277
trained, and with this force at his back he threatened to drive
the native Irish from the province of Connaught as completely
as they had been expelled from Ulster. This proposed
Plantation of Connaught was not, however, carried out. Went-
worth’s rule, firm and even harsh, was the best possible for
Ireland. Under him the country prospered and peace was
maintained. He was hated. The English, after the Norman
Conquest, hated their Norman masters; yet the discipline
imposed on the slothful Anglo-Saxons by their Norman lords
benefited the nation. Ireland in the seventeenth century
needed discipline. Its people were barely civilised; they
wasted their energies in tribal warfare; they had little or no
national consciousness. A line of such rulers as Wentworth
would have conferred lasting benefit on the land, and its later
history would have been much happier.
Not long after Wentworth's return to England the Irish
instinct for disorder asserted itself. A rebellion began in
1641, and the native and Roman Catholic Irish attacked the
Protestant Ulster settlers, hundreds of whom were murdered,
while many others lost all their possessions. The troubles
in England prevented the King from sending forces to Ireland
to cope with this outbreak, and by 1643 the Catholic rebels
were supreme throughout the country. Charles I, in fact,
concluded with them a treaty, known as the Cessation, by which
they were to help him against his English enemies. The
Protestant cause in Ireland seemed lost, Roman Catholic
worship was restored in the churches of the Church of Ireland,
and a papal agent visited the land. But the victorious rebels
quarrelled among themselves, and the Marquis of Ormond
was able in 1648 to raise a Royalist army to support the cause
of the King. Immediately upon the death of Charles I
Ormond proclaimed Charles II.
In 1649 Cromwell crossed to Ireland with a brigade of the
New Model Army. As has been already narrated, he captured
Drogheda and Wexford, and massacred the garrisons which
had been placed in these towns by Ormond. Resistance
broke down, Ormond fled, and order was restored at last.
Catholic worship was suppressed, and the lands of Irish
Royalists were given to veteran soldiers of the army, or were
sold to pay the expenses of the expedition. Under Ireton,
and, after him, Ludlow, firm government was again established*
Cromwell s name is hated by the Irish even more than that
THE STUART PERIOD
278
of Wentworth. It is significant, however, that Puritan and
Royalist Deputies alike found only one way to keep Ireland in
order — the exercise of the utmost strictness.
Under the Instrument of Government Ireland became part
of the Protectorate, and it was represented by thirty members
in the Parliaments called by Oliver Cromwell. This union
with Great Britain did not outlast Puritan rule, and with the
restoration of Charles II Ireland was treated again as a
separate country.
Ormond was restored to power, with a dukedom as the
reward of his loyalty and the title of Lord Lieutenant to fortify
his authority. The question which gave most trouble was that
of land. The Royalists naturally expected the restoration of
their forfeited estates. Yet it would not be good policy to
dispossess Puritan settlers, who formed a kind of English
garrison in Ireland, bound to uphold English ascendancy.
The Act of Settlement, 1661, permitted the Puritans to retain
their estates and at the same time promised restoration to the
Royalists. But though much land was confiscated from the
rebel Irish there was not enough to satisfy all claimants, and
Ormond in 1665 had to pass through Parliament an Act or
Explanation which reduced the Puritan estates by one-third.
The Irish Church was restored, and Roman Catholic worship
reappeared in the land. No formal sanction was accorded to
it but it was in practice permitted. F of
Tames II's Lord Lieutenant was Richard Talbot, Earl 01
Tyrconell. He was a Roman Catholic, and did nothin & ,
hinder the full restoration of his religion throughout the la •
But he was not really devoted to the cause of King "
looked forward to the ultimate severance of the tie between
Ireland and Great Britain, with the repeal of the Act of belt
ment and the restoration of Irish lands to Irish people. »
flight of James from England presented an opportunity
ll execution of his plans James however app^ »
Ireland with a French force at his back in 1 68 9- ^ rc ^ onty
by no means inclined to assist him to recover his author ty
over England and Ireland. For the time being, howeve ,
James a^d his lieutenant were able to act together agains
common enemy,
story of their attempt and its failure has already bee
It must be noticed, however, that if they had been success ^
in Ulster and on the Boyne they would not have been
IRELAND IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 279
act in concert much longer, for the severance of the English
connection, at which Tyrconeli and his levies aimed, would
have been opposed by James.
The subjugation of Ireland in 1690 and 1691 was completed
at Limerick, and a Protestant Parliament, which met in 1695,
laid the foundation of a code of laws directed against the
native Irish, a code of such severity that for three-quarters of
a century the land and its people lay crushed.
CHAPTER XLVII
PARTY STRUGGLES IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE
Anne was the younger daughter of James II, and she succeeded
her brother-in-law, William III, in pursuance of the arrange-
ment set out in the Bill of Rights. She was a vain woman,
of no great strength of character, and the fact that she influenced
the course of affairs during her reign to a considerable extent
indicates that the monarchy had not yet lost all its importance.
She was a strong supporter of the Church of England, and was
inclined to the Tory party. She dismissed those Whig ministers
who held office during the last few weeks of William Ill's reign,
and put Tories in their places. The ministry thus appointed
lasted from 1702 till 1710, though very few of those who
received office in 1702 held it till 1710, and while it was
definitely Tory at the beginning it had become entirely Whig
before it was dismissed.
The leading members of the Government were the Earl of
Marlborough and Sidney Lord Godolphin, Lord High
Treasurer, both of whom had hitherto been regarded as Tories.
Both were eager to see the war carried through to a triumphant
conclusion, and Marlborough soon realised that the Whigs
shared his desire while the Tories were lukewarm in support
of the war. Marlborough at first was not too sure of his
position. For several years he spent the summer on the
continent, conducting campaigns against the French, while
he returned to England for the periods during which the army
was encamped in winter quarters. During his absence his
influence might have been undermined had it not been for the
close friendship which existed between the Queen and his wue,
the haughty and imperious Duchess of Marlborough. After
his victory at Blenheim in 1704, Marlborough, already a duke,
was firmly established in the position of Captain-General, ana
his enemies were unable for some years to intrigue effectively
against him. . , .
The freedom granted to Protestant Dissenters by
280
281
PARTY STRUGGLES
Toleration Act of 1689 was by no means complete. They
could now worship in their own meeting-houses without fear
of the law, but the Corporation Act of 1661 still prevented them
from sitting on corporations unless they adopted the practice
of “ Occasional Conformity/' The Act required all members
of corporations to take the sacrament according to the Church
of England, and many Dissenters did this in order to qualify
for membership, though they had no intention of attending
church services and taking the sacrament regularly. The
Tories wished to stop this practice, and while they were in
power they tried to pass the Occasional Conformity Bill,
which was directed against it. The Bill came before Parlia-
ment in 1703. Marlborough did not wish it to pass because
he did not want to weaken the power of the Whigs, the sup-
porters of the war. Yet he feared to offend the Tories lest
they should bring about his fall. When, however, he was sure
the Bill would not pass he voted for it.
In 1704 several of the extreme Tories left the ministry,
and a number of moderate Tories took their places. Further
changes occurred in 1706, and some Whigs were admitted to
office. After the union with Scotland, described in another
chapter, the Whig party in the House of Commons was
stronger, since most of the Scottish members were Whig.
In 1708 the remaining Tories resigned, and for the last two
years of its existence the ministry was entirely Whig. Marl-
borough and Godolphin remained in it and m ust be regarded
from 1708 as belonging to the Whig party.
But the Government was becoming unpopular. The people
were tired of the war. Great victories had been won, but they
seemed to bring the end of the war no nearer. Negotiations
for peace had been begun and had broken down; their failure,
it was said, was due to Whig obstinacy in demanding impossible
terms of the French King. The Duke of Marlborough had
lost much of his former popularity. It was whispered that
he was continuing the war for his own glory. His men were
devoted to him. But England was not yet used to the idea
of a standing army. Once before, and only once, there had
been a standing army devoted to its leader. It had over-
thrown the monarchy and elevated its commander to the
government of the country. Was Marlborough to be a second
Cromwell? Such ideas sprang up and the Tories did their
best to spread them.
282
THE STUART PERIOD
The cry arose that the Church was in danger while the
Whigs ruled, as they were well disposed towards the Dissenters.
Dr. Henry Sacheverell preached a sermon at St. Paul’s
Cathedral before the Lord Mayor of London, in which he
revived the doctrines of non-resistance and Divine Right.
Much controversy followed, and the Whigs unwisely decided
to impeach the Doctor. He was found guilty of seditious
teaching and was ordered not to preach for three years. But
he became, to a most undeserved extent, popular, and the trial
diminished the already waning prestige of the Government.
The immediate cause of the fall of the Whigs in 1710 is,
however, to be sought at court. The close friendship of
Queen Anne with the Duchess of Marlborough came to an
end, and the favourite left the court. In her place Anne
received into her confidence and favour a Tory lady, Abigail
Hill, who married a Guards officer, Mr. Masham, who not long
after became Lord Masham. This change in the balance of
influence at court led to the dismissal of the Whigs and the
establishment of a Tory ministry.
The leaders of the new Government were Abigail m s
cousin, Robert Harley, who was made Earl of Oxford and held
the post of Lord High Treasurer, and Henry St. John, Viscount
Bolingbroke, who became Secretary of State. Harley was
a man of honour; Bolingbroke was a brilliant politician,
utterly selfish and entirely devoid of moral principle, ^ln
years to come Sir Robert Walpole was to describe him as
making it his trade to betray the secrets of every court as soon
as he left it, as betraying every master he ever served, as voi
of all faith and all honour.” . . .
The aim of the Tory ministers was two-fold. They wishe
to bring the war to an end and re-establish peace, and in tms
matter their way was made easier by the accession o
Archduke Charles to the throne of the Empire in 1711. ^
wlfmade at Utrecht in 1713, but it had to be approved by
both Houses of Parliament. There was no difficulty in
House of Commons, where there was now a Tory majority^
But the Whigs possessed a small majority in the “Ouse
Lords and therewas a poss.brlity that the peers would re.ect
the Peace. A few days before the debate was to take P '
however, Anne created twelve new Tory peers, among
was Abigail Masham's husband, and the House, now containing
a Tory majority, accepted the Peace.
PARTY STRUGGLES 283
But Harley and St. John wanted peace in order to clear the
way for the fulfilment of their main aim, which was to bring
about the succession of the Pretender on the death of Queen
Anne. To the end of the reign it was uncertain whether the
Queen would be followed by her half-brother or by the Elector
of Hanover. The only real difficulty in the way of a Stuart
succession was that of religion. If the Chevalier had been
willing to abandon the Roman Catholic faith for that of the
Church of England he would probably have been accepted
by the nation in preference to the Elector. The necessary
modification of the Act of Settlement would have been made
at once by a Tory Parliament, and Queen Anne would have
given her assent. But he would not abandon his religion.
Cautious and indirect preparations for his succession were
nevertheless begun by the Tories. Open and direct measures
were out of the question, since they would be contrary to law
and would be treasonable. Thus, certain regiments which
were regarded as Whig in feeling were disbanded, and the Duke
of Ormond was made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports — an
appointment which, it was hoped, would facilitate the landing
of the Chevalier in England. On the other hand, the Whigs
prepared for the accession of the Hanoverian candidate.
Sophia was still alive, but she was old, and it was probable
that she would not come to England. If she outlived Queen
Anne, her son, the Elector George, would come as Regent;
if she died before Anne he would come as King. The Whigs,
though no longer in office, could act openly in any prepara-
tions they wished to make, since they were proposing to carry
out the law and not to intrigue against it. They invited the
Electoral Prince (afterwards George II) to come to England
as his father’s representative. The Tories could not raise
formal objection to this, but Queen Anne was very angry and
wrote a violent letter to Sophia, the receipt of which affected
the old lady so much that she died soon after.
Harley and Bolingbroke, however, were not in agreement.
Harley still insisted that James must change his religion as
the price of Tory support; Bolingbroke cared nothing for the
Pretender’s religion. The two statesmen quarrelled in the
Queen's presence, and Harley, for forgetting the personal
respect due to the Queen, was dismissed from his office.
Bolingbroke was now alone at the head of the Government and
could make more active preparations to proclaim James when
THE STUART PERIOD
284
the time should come. But the excitement of these events
made the Queen seriously ill, and five days after the dismissal
of Harley she died. Before her death, however, she appointed
the Duke of Shrewsbury, a Whig, to the post of Lord High
Treasurer in Harley’s place. The appointment proved fatal
to Bolingbroke’s schemes, for immediately upon the Queen’s
death Shrewsbury proclaimed the Elector of Hanover King as
George I. Bolingbroke was unprepared. If Anne had lived
a few weeks longer he might have been ready to proclaim
James ; the sudden death of the Queen left him with no alter-
native to joining the Pretender abroad. And so came about
“the greatest miracle in English history " — the accession of
George I.
SUMMARIES OF THE CHAPTERS
OF THIS BOOK
THE TUDOR PERIOD
INTRODUCTION: THE BEGINNING OF MODERN TIMES
the world's history:
Ancient Times:
Highly civilised peoples. Powerful empires. Great cities.
Art. Literature.
Ended with the fall of the Roman Empire, when barbarian
nations invaded it and founded kingdoms in Roman provinces.
Middle Ages :
Little progress aimed at or made. In every sphere of life
(religion, industry, trade, etc.) men were members of groups.
The group was more important than the individual.
Ended with the Renaissance.
Modem Times:
Great progress in every way. Men have acted as individuals,
and not as members of large groups. They have thought
for themselves.
EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES:
Very little education. Few people could read and write, except
priests and monks. Monastic schools for boys who intended
to enter the Church.
Latin :
Studied in monastic schools:
(a) Language of church services.
(b) Language of books.
(c) " Universal language " of learned men.
Greek:
Not studied.
Astrology :
Forerunner of astronomy. Concerned with the casting of
horoscopes.
Alchemy :
Forerunner of chemistry. Concerned with the search for the
philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life, and the universal solvent.
the renaissance:
Revival of classical learning in the fifteenth century, after Turks
285
286
1453 -
SUMMARY
captured Constantinople. Greek scholars from Eastern Europe
fled westwards and spread knowledge of Greek in universities
of Western Europe.
Intellectual activity. Men began to t hink for themselves.
Inventions :
Mariner's compass.
Telescope (a century later).
Printing.
Renaissance in Italy. Painting. Sculpture. Literature.
Renaissance in Central and Northern Europe. Study of Greek
led to the reading of the Greek New Testament. Doctrines
of the Church questioned. Led to the Reformation.
1. GEOGRAPHICAL DISCOVERIES IN THE FIFTEENTH AND
SIXTEENTH CENTURIES
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD IN THE MIDDLE AGES:
(1) Europe, South-west Asia and India, and Northern Africa
well known.
(2) Eastern Asia slightly known.
(3) America, Australasia, and most of Africa unknown.
(4) Shape and size of the world unknown.
TRADE IN THE MIDDLE AGES:
Carried on by the cities on the shores of the Mediterranean:
Marseilles, Genoa, Venice, Constantinople, Alexandria.
Eastern trade:
Silks and spices. Monopolised by Genoa and Venice.
(1) Genoa and Constantinople. Caravan trade from Central
Asia to the Black Sea.
(2) Venice and India, by
(а) Levant, Syrian Desert, Persian Gulf.
(б) Egypt and Red Sea.
Western trade:
Venice and the Netherlands (Bruges).
(1) By Brenner Pass and Rhine valley.
(2) By sea to English Channel and the Netherlands.
Venetian monopoly. High prices. New route to India needed.
POSSIBLB NEW ROUTES TO INDIA:
(1) Round Africa. Attempted by Portuguese.
(2) Westwards. Attempted by Spanish.
PORTUGUESE:
1394-
1460.
Prince Henry the Navigator :
Encouraged exploration of the west coast of Africa
ivory, gold-dust, and slaves.
Trade in
THE TUDOR PERIOD
287
i486.
1497-8.
1501.
1505.
1509.
Bartholomew Diaz :
Reached the Cape of Good Hope.
Vasco da Gama :
Reached India.
Cabral :
Began trade on a considerable scale. Discovered Brazil.
Portuguese depot established at Antwerp. Competed with
Venetians. Battle of Diu (Indian Ocean). Portuguese
defeated Venetians and Egyptians.
Portuguese trade by the Cape route continued during the six-
teenth century. No other nation used this route till the end
of the century.
SPANISH:
Columbus :
Four voyages. Reached
1492. (1) Bahamas, Cuba, Hayti.
1493. (2) Jamaica.
1498. (3) Venezuela.
1502. (4) Honduras.
Amerigo Vespucci:
1499. Explored coast of Central America and north coast of South
America.
Ponce de Leon :
1512. Discovered Florida.
Balboa :
1513. Crossed the Isthmus.
By 1517 it was recognised that the Spanish discoveries were not
part of Asia.
Magellan :
1519-21. Voyage round the world. Crossed Pacific and reached Philip-
pines. Route useless for trade, but voyage proved world to
be round.
English:
Took little part in exploration.
Cabot :
Two voyages. Reached
1497. (1) Newfoundland.
1498. (2) Mainland of North America.
RESULTS OF THE EXPLORATIONS:
(1) New route to India.
(2) New continent discovered.
(3) Diminished importance of Mediterranean. Decay of
Mediterranean cities.
(4) World’s trade in modem times on Atlantic.
(5) Increased importance of Spain, France, England, and
Portugal.
(6) Men eager for further exploration.
288
SUMMARY
2. EUROPE AT THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY
1477-
1491.
1469.
1492.
HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE:
In Central Europe. Corresponded roughly with modem
Germany, but extended farther to the west and south and not
so far to the east. Included Netherlands, Switzerland, and
Austria, but not Prussia. Nearly three hundred states, a few
large and powerful, many small. States ruled by princes.
Emperor a personage of great dignity. “Lord of the World.”
Little real power as Emperor, though he might be powerful on
account of other possessions. Elective, not hereditary.
Chosen by seven Electors. It became usual from about this
time to elect a member of the Hapsburg family. Emperor
from 1493 to 1519 was Maximilian of Hapsburg, who married
Mary of Burgundy.
France:
Formerly many provinces, ruled by dukes or counts almost
independent of king. Kings gradually increased in power.
Many provinces came under direct rule of Crown. Burgundy,
after death of Charles the Rash. Brittany, after marriage of
Charles VIII to the Duchess Anne. France united under
royal rule before end of fifteenth century.
NETHERLANDS:
Seventeen provinces, within Empire. Part of Burgundian
dominions. Passed to Mary of Burgundy, who married
Maximilian. Became Hapsburg dominion. Manufacturing.
Wealthy.
SPAIN l
Several small kingdoms in the Middle Ages. By fifteenth century
only Castile, Aragon, Portugal, and Granada. Portugal
separate till to-day (except 1580-1640). Ferdinand of Aragon
married Isabella of Castile. Conquered Granada, bpain
united by end of fifteenth century.
^Y. y •
Not united. Papal States in middle. Kingdom of Naples in
south. Duchy of Milan and other states in north. Horn
France and Spain claimed both Milan and Naples. Frequent
wars in Italy between France and Spain.
^ Wars 0 of the Roses ended. Noble power reduced. Strong
Tudor monarchy. Country peaceful and prosperous.
Scotland:
Poor and backward,
less over Highlands.
King had little authority over Lowlands,
Fear of England. Alliance with France.
GREAT POWERS OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY:
Spain France England
(1) United under strong kings.
(2) Situated on Atlantic seaboard. Favourably
with the New World. Future struggles for co
alaced for trade
onial empire.
289
THE TUDOR PERIOD
In the first half of sixteenth century:
Enmity of France and Spain, for supremacy in Italy.
In the second half of sixteenth century:
Enmity of England and Spain, on the religious question.
3. HENRY VII
WHY HE BECAME KING:
1485. His victory over Richard III at Bosworth.
ms RIGHT TO THE THRONE:
Parliament recognised him as King.
Not conquest, which confers no right.
Not descent, since others had better right by descent.
POSSIBLE RIVALS:
Edward, Earl of Warwick :
In the Tower, 1485-99.
Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV :
Henry married her.
claimants:
Lambert Simnel:
1487. Claimed to be Earl of Warwick. Put forward by Irish Yorkists.
Defeated at Stoke. Became King's servant.
Perkin Warbeck:
1492. Claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, brother of Edward V.
Helped successively by King of France, Duchess of
Burgundy, King of Scotland. Married Lady Catherine
Gordon. Landed in Ireland. Then in south-west England.
1497. Captured at Beaulieu.
1499. Hanged.
tudor policy:
To strengthen power of Crown.
Possible rivals to Crown:
Nobility :
Power destroyed by Henry VIL
Church :
Made subject to Crown by Henry VIII.
Parliament :
Of little importance.
nobility :
(1) Power already reduced in Wars of Roses.
{2) Nobles forbidden to keep retainers.
(3) Star Chamber established to enforce law, and fine law-
breakers.
(4) Castles useless, since King possessed cannon.
290
SUMMARY
treasure:
Amassed by Henry VII in order that he might use it in recovering
the throne if he were deposed.
(1) Saving from revenue.
(2) Star Chamber fines.
(3) Benevolences.
(4) A payment by the King of France in 1492.
4. EARLY TUDOR FOREIGN POLICY
AT BEGINNING OF TUDOR PERIOD:
English possessions in France lost except Calais. England of
little importance in Europe. Henry VII and Henry VIII
aimed at re-establishing English reputation in Europe.
1492.
1496.
1506.
1501.
1502.
1503 -
henry vii :
(1) General policy of peace:
Because of the uncertainty of his position.
(2) France:
Henry invaded France. No fighting.
Treaty of Etaples:
(a) Warbeck expelled.
( b ) Money payment.
(3) Netherlands : ,
Duchess of Burgundy sheltered Warbeck. Henry stopped
wool trade.
Magnus Intercursus:
(a) Warbeck expelled.
( b ) Trade restored.
Mai us Intercursus:
Unfavourable to Netherlands.
(4) Spain: . __ V it
Italian wars with France began m 1494- Henry vii
wanted Spanish alliance. Royal marriage. Arthur married
Catherine of Aragon. Arthur died. Proposed marriage 01
Henry, Duke of York, with Catherine. Papal dispensation.
(5) Scotland: . , , . . . . p oU il
At first unfriendly. Henry aimed at friendship. Koyai
marriage. James IV and Margaret Tudor.
1509.
1508.
HENRY VIII :
(1) Policy:
Alliance with Spain.
Vigorous part in European warfare.
(2 ) Marriage: . . ...
With Catherine of Aragon. Spanish alliance.
( 3 ) League of Cambray :
France, Spain, Emperor, Pope, against Venice,
for Henry, who was not yet King.
No chance
THE TUDOR PERIOD
291
15x1. (4 ) Holy League :
Pope, Spain, Emperor, Venice, and Henry VIII. To drive
French out of Italy.
(5) War of Holy League :
1512. Gascony campaign. No help from Ferdinand. Troops
mutinied. Failure.
1513. Flanders campaign. Henry and Wolsey. Tournai captured.
Battle of Spurs.
1513. Scottish invasion of England. Battle of Flodden. James IV
slain.
1514. Peace between England and France. Louis XII married
Mary Tudor.
1515. French invaded Italy. Battle of Marignano. French captured
Milan.
5. THE RIVALRY OF FRANCE AND SPAIN DURING THE
FIRST PART OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY
THE THREE YOUNG KINGS:
1509. England. Henry VIII succeeded Henry VII.
1515. France. Francis I succeeded Louis XII.
1516. Spain. Charles I succeeded Ferdinand.
the empire:
1519. Maximilian died. The three young kings became candidates
for the Imperial crown. Henry withdrew. Charles elected
Emperor as Charles V. Francis angry.
1521- WAR BETWEEN FRANCE AND SPAIN:
J 559- Causes:
(with (1) Disappointment of Francis,
short in- (2) Italian claims,
tervals Preparations :
of peace) Both sought English alliance.
Francis met Henry at the Field of the Cloth cf Gold.
Charles negotiated with Henry and with Wolsey.
Course of the struggle :
1 52i- 5* England allied with Spain. Francis defeated and captured
1525. at Pavia. Milan became Spanish.
1526. Anglo-Spanish alliance ceased, because
(1) Wolsey not Pope.
(2) Proposed divorce of Henry from Catherine.
1526-9. England allied with France. Charles still victorious.
1 529 — 38* Henry withdrew from war. (End of papal power in England.)
1538-40. Proposed alliance of Francis and Charles against Henry, to
restore papal power in England. Henry allied with German
princes and married Anne of Cleves.
Charles and Francis again at war. Henry divorced Anne of
Cleves.
1540.
292
1545 -
1547 -
1554 -
1556.
1 557 - 8 -
i 558.
!559.
SUMMARY
Charles and Henry again allied (after Princess Mary restored
to succession). English captured Boulogne.
Henry and Francis died. Franco-Spanish rivalry continued.
Philip, Prince of Spain, married Queen Mary, to secure English
alliance.
Charles abdicated. Philip II succeeded to -Spain.
War of England and Spain against France. Calais lost.
Mary died. Philip proposed to marry Elizabeth, who
declined. _
Peace between France and Spain in order to extirpate Protes-
tantism, which had gained ground during this forty years'
war.
6. WOLSEY
1471 - 1530 .
EARLY LIFE:
Humble parentage. Born at Ipswich.
Entered priesthood.
1513.
1514.
1515-
1518.
Educated at Oxford.
ADVANCEMENT :
Bishop of Winchester introduced him to court. Gained notice
of Henry VII. Dean of Lincoln and Royal Almoner.
Controlled commissariat in Flanders campaign. Bishop
Toumai and Lincoln.
Archbishop of York.
Lord Chancellor. Cardinal.
From time to time obtained other bishoprics and an abbey.
Great wealth. Built York House and Hampton Court. Kuiea
England as Henry’s minister for fifteen years.
Ruled through the Council and
ambition:
To become Pope.
policy :
Domestic:
To rule without Parliament,
the Star Chamber.
^To reform it by improving education of clergy.
Cardinal College (Christ Church), Oxford. Not a real
reformer. Pluralist.
F To S "support Charles against Francis, m return
support at Rome. Later, to support Francis against cnaries
DIVORCE QUESTION: ; , v^rstise
Henry wanted his marriage with Catherine declared voi r an
oThis doubts of its validity. Children died. Need of an
PopeViaskedTo declare that the dispensation was invalid.
THE TUDOR PERIOD 293
1527. Charles captured Rome and controlled Pope, who invented
pretexts for delay in settling the divorce question.
1528. Commission (Wolsey and Campeggio) to try case in England.
1529. Case recalled to Rome,
1529. FALL OF WOLSEY:
Because of delays in divorce case. Deprived of all posts.
Yielded his palaces to King. Restored to Archbishopric of York.
1530. Arrested at York for treason. Died at Leicester.
7. THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION
ORGANISATION :
Originally simple. After Christianity became religion of Roman
Empire, Church became highly organised and wealthy. Pope
at head. Simplicity lost. Separation of east and west in
ninth century.
need of reform (at close of Middle Ages) :
Lives of clergy :
Parish priests. Often lazy. Some (not all) were evil.
Bishops. Neglected dioceses. Were statesmen rather than
leaders of religion.
Friars. Did good work, but demanded payment for their
services.
Cardinals and Popes. Great wealth. Often great wickedness.
Doctrines of Church:
It was doubtful whether they were in accord with Christ’s
teaching. Much crude teaching about hell and purgatory.
Sale of indulgences.
Wealth of Church :
Great. Increasing. Attracted many unsuitable men to
priesthood.
Pope:
Head of the Church as successor to St. Peter.
(1) Right to headship disputed by many.
(2) Wealthy.
(3) Some Popes evil.
(4) Ruler of Papal States.
(5) Claimed superiority to kings.
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT REFORM:
Wycliffe and the Lollards (Fourteenth century— England) :
Wy cliff e taught that
(1) Only good men should exercise authority.
(2) Church should renounce its wealth and the clergy should
live on the voluntary contributions of their people.
Lollards persecuted. Movement declined, though it did not
entirely die away.
294
SUMMARY
The Councils (Fifteenth century — Continent):
The Great Schism (two popes, and for a time three popes)
was ended by the Council of Constance.
The Council of Constance ordered that a Council should meet
every ten years. Failure, because Popes were unwilling to
call Councils.
8. THE REFORMATION
CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION:
(1) The evils in the Church.
(2) The spirit of inquiry which had resulted from the Renaissance.
1483- LUTHER:
1546. Born in Saxony. Became a friar.
1509. Professor at University of Wittenberg.
1517. Criticised the sale of indulgences then being carried on in
Germany by Tetzel.
1520. Excommunicated.
The Emperor Charles V wished to put him to death, but was
throughout his reign occupied with the war with France.
Many German princes supported Luther, and before his
death most of the northern states of the Empire were Lutheran.
Lutheranism did not spread beyond the Empire, except to some
extent into Scandinavia.
Lutherans were known, after a time, as Protestants.
1509- CALVIN:
1564- Born in France. Suspected of heresy. Lived for some time
at Basel. Wrote The Institutes, in which he described an
ideal church. t .
1 536-8. Lived at Geneva, where he enforced his ideas, txnea.
1541-64. Again at Geneva. System fully enforced. rtfinftsite
Calvin's system was strict and severe. In many ways the °PP°®
of Roman Catholicism. Persecuted those who did not agrw
with him. Welcomed reformers who fled from persecution
their own lands.
Calvinism spread into many countries.
RESULTS OF THE REFORMATION:
(1) The unity of the Church was destroyed, and has never be
(2) f< In course of time the Roman Church began to reform itself,
in order to avoid further losses.
9. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION
CAUSES OF THE COUNTER-REFORMATION l
(1) The desire felt by the best men in the CTiurcfa for reform-
(2) The necessity of doing something to prevent further io»
THE TUDOR PERIOD
295
AIMS OF THE COUNTER-REFORMATION:
(1) To prevent further losses.
(2) To recover what had been lost.
1545- THE COUNCIL OF TRENT:
1563 • (1) Attempted, and failed, to reach agreement with the German
Protestants.
(2) Established rules for the lives of the clergy.
(3) Restated the doctrines of the Church.
(4) Did not touch papal power.
THE inquisition:
The Papal Inquisition:
In parts of Italy and the Empire.
The Spanish Inquisition :
Throughout Spanish dominions. Heretics secretly denounced.
Examined by means of torture. Confessions extorted.
Punished with death by burning. Especially severe
persecution in the Netherlands.
THE Jesuits:
A religious order founded to recover for the Church what it
had lost. Well organised. Strict obedience to superiors.
"General" at the head of the order.
Work of the Jesuits:
(1) Preaching.
(2) Teaching.
(3) Missionary work to Protestant countries.
(4) Missionary work to heathen lands.
(5) Exploration.
WARS OF RELIGION:
Spain' undertook the task of recovering the separated countries
by force. She used the gold and silver obtained from the
New World for this purpose.
1572-1609. Against the Netherlands, in their revolt from Spain.
1587-1604. Against England.
1618-48. Against the Protestant German states, in the Thirty Years War.
RESULTS OF THE COUNTER-REFORMATION:
(1) Further losses from the Church were averted.
(2) The countries already lost were not recovered.
(3) The worst evils were removed from the Church.
10. THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND
THE CHURCH IN EARLY TIMES:
Identical with the nation. All Englishmen belonged to the
Church. King at head of it. Pope respected in England,
but could do nothing contrary to the King's will.
296
SUMMARY
THE CHURCH IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES:
1213- King John became the Pope's vassal. After this event Popes
exercised much greater power in England.
Popes used their power to extort money from England.
Appeals were carried from English ecclesiastical courts to Rome.
Very costly.
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT REFORM IN ENGLAND!
14th Wy cliff e:
cent. Proposed that the wealth of the Church should be renounced.
Failure. The movement was too early — before the mass of
the people realised that reform was needed.
End of Oxford Reformers :
15 th Studied Greek. Read the Greek New Testament. Tried to
cent. bring about better standard of life among the clergy.
HENRY VIII :
Educated for the priesthood. Catholic throughout his life. No
sympathy with Protestantism. Wrote Defence of the Seven
Sacraments, against Luther. Pope conferred on him utie,
"Defender of the Faith.”
CAUSES OF THE SEPARATION FROM ROME:
(1) [Real]. The way in which papal power had been abused
during the past three centuries.
(2) [Immediate]. The Pope’s refusal to grant Henry a divorce
from Catherine.
the king's aim:
To recover the royal authority over the Church of England whtcb
had been enjoyed by early kings, but which had been lost since
the reign of John.
THE SEPARATION FROM ROME: m
1529-36. Carried out by Acts of the "Reformation Parliament."
1*532. Annates Act:
Forbade the payment of annates to the Pope.
,533 ' ^Forbade”* appeals from English couris <0 Rome
existing appeals. Such cases to be settled by the Archbisnop
0^ Canterbury. Archbishop Cranmer granted Henry s
divorce.
1 534 * ^Kmg^be "Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England.
EFFECTS OF THE SEPARATION:
(1) Foreign authority over the Church of England was abolished.
(2) Royal authority over the Church was restored. . ,. .
N.B (u) Though the divorce question was the tmmeiate
cause of the break, it would have come sooner or
THE TUDOR PERIOD 297
in any case. The nation was weary of the abuses of
papal power.
(6) The nation as a whole agreed with what the King did.
(c) Henry did not become a Protestant.
(d) No new Church was established. The headship of
the existing Church was changed.
(e) Royal power was completed by the assumption of
authority over the Church.
11. THOMAS CROMWELL AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE
MONASTERIES
1 530-40. THOMAS CROMWELL:
Humble parentage. Secretary to Wolsey. King's chief minister
for ten years, during the period of the dissolution of the
monasteries. Held the post of “Vicar- General" after 1535.
the succession:
Henry married Anne Boleyn. Daughter Elizabeth. Declared
heir to throne in place of Mary. More and Fisher beheaded
for refusing to recognise Anne as Henry's lawful wife.
the monasteries:
Their former usefulness and importance:
(1) As places of refuge from the wickedness of the world.
(2) As centres of religion and learning.
(3) For the writing of books.
(4) For the instruction of children.
(5) For the relief of the destitute.
(6) For the entertainment of travellers.
(7) For the care of the sick.
Their decay (by sixteenth century):
(1) Few men and women became monks and nuns.
(2) Books now printed.
(3) Schools established.
(4) Inns were springing up.
Their position :
Most of them were independent of bishops. Abbots equa to
bishops. Looked to Pope as their immediate head.
REASONS FOR THE DISSOLUTION:
(1) That the King coveted their wealth (often asserted — yet not
the real reason).
(2) That they were corrupt (the pretext— not the real reason).
(3) that their usefulness and importance were gone (for this
reason they were certain to be dissolved sooner or later).
(4) That they looked to the Pope as their head, and that Henry
would not be unquestioned head of the Church while they
remained (the main reason).
298
SUMMARY
the dissolution:
1536. Smaller monasteries :
By Act of Par liam ent. Those with less than two hundred
pounds a year.
1536. Pilgrimage of Grace :
Rebellion in Yorkshire. Rebels demanded restoration of
monasteries and dismissal of Cromwell. Rebels dispersed
with promises from Duke of Norfolk. Punished by King.
1537. Council of the North established.
1539-40 . Larger monasteries : ,
Abbots persuaded to surrender their houses into the King s
hands. All did so except three, who were put to death, and
their abbeys confiscated.
MONASTIC WEALTH:
In the King's hands. Disposed of as follows:
(1) Six new bishoprics established.
(2) Pensions to monks and nuns.
(3) National defence.
(4) Distributed amongst King's favourites.
RESULTS OF THE DISSOLUTION:
(1) Papal power in England completely destroyed.
(2) New landowners used their lands for their own advantage,
and with no regard for the poor. . f
(3) New landowners would always be opposed to restoration 01
papal power.
1540. DEATH OF CROMWELL:
For “treason.” Really for arranging for the King a marriage
of which Henry did not approve.
12. ENGLISH RELIGION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TUDOR
PERIOD (1535-1558)
1535- HENHY VIII :
1547 H Head*of’the Church. Catholic. Would not tolerate
testants. Nation as a whole Catholic. A few Protestants in
London and the south-east.
^T^party^f no further change.” Included Gardiner and
Norfolk.
^The party o7“fu*rther change in the direction of
Outwardly Catholic. Included Cranmer, Cromwell, and
Hertford.
^Indicate^the* influence of the one group or of the other over
the King.
299
THE TUDOR PERIOD
1536-40.
1538.
1539-
1545-
1546- 7-
Dissolution of the monasteries : New Learning influence.
Bible in English: New Learning influence.
Six Articles : Old Learning influence.
Short English service: New Learning influence.
Chantries and Gilds: New Learning influence.
1547- EDWARD VI. SOMERSET'S ROLE:
1549* The Protector was a Protestant, and made various changes.
1547. (1) Six Articles repealed.
1547. (2) Priests allowed to marry.
(3) Old customs discontinued.
(4) Plundering of the churches.
1549- (5) First Book of Common Prayer.
1549. Rebellions. The most serious in Devon. Suppressed.
1549- EDWARD VI. WARWICK’S RULE:
1553- Warwick was President of the Council. Became Duke of
Northumberland. No real principles, but sided with extreme
Protestants. Further changes.
1552. (1) Second Book of Common Prayer.
(2) Further plundering of Church property.
(3) Preaching of Protestantism in England by foreign
Protestants.
(4) Imprisonment oi certain bishops.
Attempted to place his daughter-in-law. Lady Jane Grey, on
the throne in succession to Edward, and so to secure a con-
tinuance of power. Failed. Mary succeeded Edward and
placed Northumberland and Jane in the Tower. Both
beheaded.
1553- mafy:
i 558- Her aim was to restore in England
(1) The Catholic religion.
(2) The Pope’s power.
The first was easy; the second was difficult.
Mary's religious changes :
(1) Foreign Protestant preachers exiled.
(2) Six Articles restored.
(3) Use of Prayer Book forbidden.
(4) Latin Mass restored.
(5) Married priests to separate from their wives.
(6) (After she had promised not to insist upon the restoration
of monastic lands.) Repeal of the Act of Supremacy, and
re-union of the Church of England with the Church of Rome.
(7) Monasteries still in possession of Crown were restored.
Cardinal Pole became Papal Legate in England, and, after the
degradation of Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.
*555-8. The persecution:
(1) About three hundred people burned.
(2) Mostly humble folk, but five bishops burned.
(3) Persecution severest in the south-east.
(4) Did not destroy Protestantism in England.
300
SUMMARY
13. THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE IN TUDOR TIMES
THE PEOPLE AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD:
Mostly worked upon the land. Few artisans in towns. Very
few sailors and fishermen. Serfdom now almost extinct
PASTURE FARMING*.
Increasing in extent, because
(1) Less labour required. ....
(2) Good price and steady market for wool in the Netherlands.
Further extension after dissolution of the monasteries. Monastic
lands had rarely been turned into pasture. New landownere
sometimes made the change.
GROWTH OF VAGABONDAGE:
(1) Many labourers displaced by the conversion of land from
arable to pasture. . .
(2) Retainers turned adrift from baronial retinues became
vagabonds. , , _
(3) Soldiers who had fought in the Wars of the Roses.
(4) Dissolution of monasteries ended monastic chanty to
destitute.
punishment:
By Henry VIII: Whipping.
By Edward VI: Branding and slavery.
1549. rebellion: .
In Norfolk. Led by Robert Kett. Rebellion crushed.
relief of the poor:
Mary: Church collection.
1 6c 1. Elizabeth: Poor Law:
(1) Every parish to support its own poor.
(2) A poor-house in every parish.
(3) Work to be provided for the able-bodied.
(4) Pauper children to be apprenticed to a trade.
14. ELIZABETH’S RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT
Elizabeth's aim: „ a tinn.
To make a lasting settlement, acceptable to the mass of th
COURSES OPEN TO ELIZABETH: .
(1) To follow Mary’s policy, recognise the Pope j htt *
Church and burn Protestants. Advantage of Ph£P * Smsffl.
(2) To follow Edward Vi's policy and reintroduce : Protest tm ^
(3) To follow Henry VIII’s policy, with the Crown at the nea
a Catholic Church.
THE TUDOR PERIOD 301
She preferred the last of these courses, but the nation was, as
a result of the Marian persecution, much more inclined to
Protestantism than it had been in the time of Henry VIII.
Her settlement had to be more Protestant than his.
the settlement:
1559 * (1) Act of Supremacy. Queen at head of Church.
i (2) Monasteries restored by Mary were dissolved.
(3) Book of Common Prayer issued.
i (4) All men compelled to attend church, under penalty of fine.
i No law against heresy.
THE papists:
For some years the settlement seemed to be successful. Even
Papists attended church.
157Q. Pope excommunicated and deposed Elizabeth.
1571. High treason to call the Queen heretic, usurper, or infidel.
Impossible henceforth for Roman Catholics to be loyal to Queen
and faithful to Pope. If loyal to Queen they ceased to be
Roman Catholics. If they obeyed Pope they were traitors to
Queen. Many of them engaged in plots on behalf of Mary
Stuart, and were punished, not for heresy, but for treason.
If they refrained from treasonable activity they suffered no
penalty other than that for recusancy.
1577. Douai mission began. Aimed at the reconversion of England.
1580. Jesuit mission began. Similar aim.
1581. Recusancy fines increased.
1585. Jesuit and Douai priests ordered to leave country within forty
days on pain of death.
Activity of these priests continued till end of reign. Constant
search for them.
the puritans:
Refugees at Geneva in Mary's reign returned in Elizabeth's
reign. Few at first. Increased. Calvinistic in belief.
Disliked the Church settlement as not being sufficiently Protestant.
Their objections:
(1) The wearing of the surplice.
(2) Bowing the head at the name of Jesus.
(3) Kneeling at communion.
(4) Use of the ring in the marriage ceremony.
(5) The sign of the cross.
(6) (Some of them.) The retention of bishops in the Church.
Some Puri t a n s left the Church and founded independent con-
gregations. They were known as '* Brownists,” or “ Sectaries,”
or ” Independents.”
ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY:
1558. Cardinal Pole :
Died one day after Mary.
1559 - 75 - Matthew Parker:
Erffi>rced the wearing of surplices by the clergy who were of
Puritan opinion. Issued the “Advertisements.”
SUMMARY
302
1 575 - 83 - Edmund Grindal:
Inclined to support the Puritans. Refused to suppress, at the
Queen's command, the Puritan religious meetings. Sus-
pended. Died in disgrace.
1583- John Whitgift:
1604. Opposed Puritans. Punished those who preached and wrote
against bishops.
THE SETTLEMENT. HOW FAR SUCCESSFUL:
Only partially, since it was opposed both by Puritans and by
Papists. Yet the fault for its partial failure did not lie with
the Queen. And the bulk of the nation accepted it.
15. ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN THE TUDOR PERIOD
SCOTTISH KINGS AND QUEENS:
James IV (1488-1513).
James V (1513-1542).
Mary (1542-1567).
James VI (1567-1625).
SCOTLAND BEFORE THE TUDOR PERIOD:
Generally hostile towards England and in alliance with France.
Border fighting common.
TUDOR POLICY TOWARDS SCOTLAND:
To bring about friendly relations with Scotland.
JAMES iv :
Unfriendly. Sheltered Perkin Warbeck.
1503. Later, became more friendly with England. Married Margaret
Tudor. (
1513. Invaded England when Henry VIII was in Flanders. Battle ot
Flodden. James slain.
JAMES v:
Margaret Tudor Regent. Friendly with England.
James grew up. Unfriendly towards England. Refused to meet
Henry VIII. Married Mary of Guise, and so maintained the
French connection.
1542. Scottish invasion of England. Battle of Solway Moss. Scots
defeated. James died soon after.
MARY STUART — REGENCY OF MARY OF GUISE:
1543. Proposed marriage of Prince Edward with Mary Stuart. Failure
1544. of negotiations. Hertford invaded Scotland.
1547. Renewed negotiations. Again failed. Somerset (Hertford)
invaded Scotland. Battle of Pinkie. English victory. Mary
sent to France.
THE TUDOR PERIOD
305
SCOTTISH reformation:
Protestants persecuted by Regent and by Cardinal Beaton.
Murder of Beaton.
John Knox preached Protestantism in Scotland. Supported by
Lords of the Congregation. Fighting between the Lords and
the Regent's forces. Lords captured Edinburgh.
Regent appealed to France for help. Lords appealed to Elizabeth.
French and English forces sent to Scotland. Regent died.
1560. Treaty of Edinburgh:
(1) Foreign troops to leave Scotland.
(2) Lords to settle Scottish religion.
1561. Presbyterianism established as religion of Scotland.
MARY STUART:
1558. Mary married Dauphin.
1559. Dauphin became King of France as Francis II.
1560. Francis II died.
1561. Mary returned to Scotland. Little power. Lords of the
Congregation all-powerful.
1565. Mary married her cousin. Lord Damley. Unsuitable match.
Darnley jealous of Mary's favourite, Rizzio.
1566. Murder of Rizzio. Birth of Mary’s son James.
1567. Murder of Darnley. Suspicion fell upon Bothwell, who was
charged and acquitted. Mary married Bothwell. Suspected
of being concerned in Damley’s murder.
1567. Lords of the Congregation rebelled. Battle of Carberry Hill.
Mary captured. Deposed. Imprisoned in Loch Leven
Castle. Her son James became King.
1568. Mary escaped. Battle of Langside. Mary defeated and fled
to England.
JAMES vi :
Regency of Scottish Lords. James brought up as a Presbyterian.
Lords friendly with England. James gTew up, remaining
friendly with Elizabeth, whom he hoped to succeed.
ANGLO-SCOTTISH RELATIONS IN THE PERIOD:
Unfriendly while efforts at friendship were based upon marriage
alliances.
Friendly after the Reformation, in which both countries took the
same side.
16. MARY STUART IN ENGLAND
MARY'S ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND:
Asked for a safe-conduct through England to France.
COURSES OPEN TO ELIZABETH:
(Mary had for some time claimed to be rightful Queen of England.)
(1) To let her go to France. But Mary in France would, with
Guise 's help, attempt to obtain the English throne.
304
SUMMARY
(2) To send her back to Scotland. But this would be so un-
generous that Elizabeth was unwilling to do it.
(3) To keep her a prisoner in England. But she would be the
centre of Roman Catholic plots and intrigues. But she could
be watched, and this course seemed to present the least
objection.
Elizabeth stated that Mary might go to France when her innocence
of complicity in Damley's murder had been proved.
1569. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY:
At York. Under presidency of Duke of Norfolk. Lords of the
Congregation sent the Casket Letters to prove Mary's guilt
Letters were possibly forgeries, but the real proof of Mary's
guilt rested upon her marriage with Bothwell.
Commission reached no definite decision.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ACTIVITY ON MARY'S BEHALF:
Norfolk :
1569. Proposed to marry Mary. Probably treasonable. Norfolk
arrested. Released on promising to give up his plan.
The Northern Earls:
1569. Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland rebelled and
captured Durham. Fled on approach of royal troops.
JRidolfi : ...
1 571-2. Plot between Dukes of Norfolk and Alva, for Spanish invasion
of England and deposition of Elizabeth in favour of Mary.
Ridolfi, a banker, acted as intermediary. Plot discovered.
Norfolk and Ridolfi put to death.
Throgmorton: .
1 583. Assassination plot. Inspired by Jesuits. Discovered. Plotters
executed. Bond of Association formed for the Queens
protection.
Babington: .
1586. Assassina tion plot. Inspired by Douai priests. Discovereo.
Plotters executed. Mary was proved to have knowledge ot
this plot.
EXECUTION OF MARY:
1587. After her complicity in Babington's plot had been proved. Her
execution was a challenge to Spain and indicated that^fcngianu
was ready to meet the Armada.
17. MARITIME ACTIVITY IN THE TUDOR PERIOD
THE ENGLISH BEFORE THE TUDOR PERIOD: _ .
Little taste for maritime activity. Foreign trade carried in
foreign ships.
HENRY VII :
1497-8. An Italian in English service. Voyages to Newfoundland and
the mainland of North America.
THE TUDOR PERIOD
305
HENHY VIII :
Understood the importance of sea power.
Built ships for the navy.
Established Trinity House.
Encouraged deep-sea fishing.
Encouraged the building of merchant ships.
CHANNEL ROVERS:
In the latter part of the period. Pirates in the English Channel.
Attacked Spanish merchant ships. School of seamanship.
Weakened Spanish power at sea.
ELIZABETH:
Conflict between England and Spain inevitable. Supply of
treasure needed. Spain possessed treasure from New World.
Methods of obtaining treasure :
(1) By trading.
(2) By piratical attack.
(3) By settlement in lands hitherto unoccupied.
{4) By exploration, leading, possibly, to the discovery of a new
route to the East.
trading:
Hawkins \
1562- Three voyages. Attempted to sell negro slaves to Spanish
1564- settlers in America. Spain maintained monopoly of her
1567. colonial trade. Hawkins successful in two voyages, since
there was no Spanish force to prevent him from trading.
Third voyage was disastrous. Spanish fleet sank three of
his ships.
PIRATICAL ATTACK :
Drake :
Channel Rover. Accompanied Hawkins on third voyage.
Many subsequent voyages to the Spanish Main. Attacked
and captured Spanish ships and settlements. Voyage round
1577-S0. the world. Later voyages. Fought against the Armada.
settlement:
Raleigh :
1585-7. Two attempts to form a settlement in Virginia. Both failed.
Gilbert :
1583. Attempt to form a settlement in Newfoundland. Failed
exploration:
Willoughby and Chancellor:
1553. Attempted to discover a North-East passage to India.
Willoughby died Chancellor reached the White Sea.
Travelled overland from Archangel to Moscow, and thence
to the Caspian Sea. Russia Company formed
*L
SUMMARY
306
Frobisher :
1576-7-8. Three attempts to discover a North-West passage to India.
Failed.
Davis :
1585-6-7. Three attempts to discover a North-West passage to India.
Failed.
18. ELIZABETH’S FOREIGN POLICY
ELIZABETH'S POSITION:
Right to throne disputed. Roman Catholics regarded Mary
Stuart as rightful Queen.
Philip offered to marry Elizabeth and support her against Mary.
Elizabeth refused, being sure that Philip would not support
Mary against her, as this would be to French advantage.
ELIZABETH'S FOREIGN POLICY:
(1) To avoid definite alliances. To play off France and Spain
against each other. Neither would attack her, lest she should
ally with the other.
(2) To postpone the inevitable war with Spain as long as possible,
while England was growing stronger and Spain was being
weakened.
ELIZABETH AND FRANCE:
Civil wars in France between Catholics and Huguenots. Eliza-
beth encouraged Huguenots. Little actual help, except from
English volunteers. .
Negotiations carried on for a marriage between Elizabeth ana a
French prince. She had no real intention of marrying.
ELIZABETH AND SPAIN:
1580.
1580.
1584.
1585.
I585-7-
1587 .
War inevitable, especially after 1570.
Elizabeth permitted unofficial attacks upon Spanish power.
(1) English volunteer help to the Dutch in their struggle
against Spain. . , . .
(2) Channel Rover attacks on Spanish shipping.
(3) Piratical attacks on the Spanish Main and elsewhere.
After Drake’s return from his voyage round the world she acie
more boldly and openly against Spain.
(1) She knighted Drake.
(2) Spanish ambassador dismissed.
(3) Jesuits expelled. . .
(4) English army under Leicester sent to the Netherlands.
(5) Execution of Mary Stuart.
AFTER THE ARMADA:
The Queen triumphant. The soundness of her policy had Dee
proved. No further possibility of losing the throne. <^rea
reputation at home and abroad. . .
On friendly terms with Henry IV of France, who was at war w
Spain from 1589 till 1598.
English war with Spain lasted till after Elizabeth's death.
307
1570 .
1587.
1588.
1589.
1591 -
1596 .
1597 -
1598 .
1603.
i6o4-
THE TUDOR PERIOD
19. THE ELIZABETHAN WAR WITH SPAIN
CAUSES OF SPANISH ATTACK:
(1) The excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth by the
Pope. Philip would be carrying out the papal sentence.
(2) Elizabeth was regarded as the champion of the Protestant
powers of Europe, while Philip was the champion of Rome.
(3) English piratical attacks on Spanish shipping in the Channel
and on the Spanish Main.
(4) English help to the Dutch.
(5) The execution of Mary Stuart. (Philip was unwilling to attack
while Mary lived, but after her death he posed as her avenger.)
THE armada:
Preparations. Drake’s attack upon Cadiz, resulting in post-
ponement of the expedition.
Spanish plan was to transport an army of 19,000 men from
Spain to the Netherlands, to receive there an additional force
of 16,000 men, and to land the combined army in England.
Fleet sailed in May. Put into port. Sailed in July.
English attacks on Armada in Channel. Spanish put into Calais
roads. Cut out by fire-ships.
Battle of Gravelines. Spanish totally defeated. Retreated north-
wards. Round the British Isles and back to Spain. Very
heavy losses.
RESULTS OF DEFEAT OF THE ARMADA:
(1) No further fear of Spanish conquest of England.
(2) No further fear of the forcible re-conversion of England to
the Roman Catholic faith.
(3) Revolt of the Netherlands continued until it was successful.
(4) Beginning of the decline of Spanish power.
THE LATER YEARS OP THE WAR:
Drake's attack on Lisbon failed.
Grenville in the Revenge fought a Spanish fleet of fifty-three ships.
Second Armada prepared. Howard and Essex captured Cadiz
and destroyed the ships.
A further Spanish attempt failed.
Philip died. War continued.
Elizabeth died.
James I made peace.
20. IRELAND DURING THE TUDOR PERIOD
IRELAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD*.
Irish lived in tribes. Loyal only to tribal heads. Great family
ruled in their own territories. Little English authority.
English king was " Lord of Ireland.”
The Pale. Strip of east-coast territory in which English rule
was recognised. Governed by a Lord Deputy appointed by
the king. Often raided by tribes of the Irishry.
308
SUMMARY
The Englishry. Acknowledged English authority, though not
submissive to it.
The Irishry. Did not acknowledge English authority.
The whole country poor, backward, ignorant, oppressed. Con-
stant inter-tribal warfare.
henry vii :
Appointed Kildare (Fitzgerald) Lord Deputy. Disloyal. Sup-
1496- ported Simnel and Warbeck. Removed for a time. Restored.
1513. Ruled till his death.
1494. Poynings sent over from England as Lord Deputy when Kildare
was removed from the post.
1494. Poynings’ Law. Passed by the Irish Parliament.
(1) No Parliament to meet in Ireland without the king's consent.
(2) No law to be passed by the Irish Parliament without the
king’s previous consent.
(3) Existing English law to hold good in Ireland.
HENRY VIII :
1513. Ninth Earl of Kildare appointed to succeed his father as Lord
Deputy. Disloyal. Put in the Tower. Died. Fitzgeralds
revolted. Crushed. Members of the family put to death.
Lands forfeited. . .
Irish Church separated from that of Rome. King at neau.
Irish monasteries dissolved.
1542. Henry assumed title of "King of Ireland.”
MARY I , .
Lands of O’Connor and O’More (Leix and Offaly)
Plantation of English settlers. King’s County and gueens
County.
ELIZABETH:
1567-8. Shane O’Neill’s revolt, in Ulster. Order restored.
1579-84. Desmond revolt, in Munster. Crushed. Desmond
forfeited. Plantation of Munster. . d
1598- Hugh O’Neill's revolt. Crushed by Mountjoy, after Essex n
1603. failed.
21. PARLIAMENT IN TUDOR TIMES
its composition:
King.
House of Lords.
(1) All lay peers, of whatever tide. .
(2) Archbishops, bishops, and mitred abbots and priors.
House of Commons.
(1) Two knights from every county.
(2) Two citizens from every city.
(3) Two burgesses from every borough that was «]**** ® elS
The common people were not represented. Only * and ° ..
in counties and wealthy townsmen in towns had a vo
an election.
THE TUDOR PERIOD
309
its functions:
(1) To make laws, or changes in existing law.
(2) To levy taxes, or make changes in existing taxes.
(3) To impeach a minister whose rule was unjust.
Parliament did not rule the country. To do this was the right
and duty of the king.
New laws and new taxes were rarely required. There was no
need for the regular meeting of Parliament. It was called
only when the king wished. There were sometimes long
periods without a meeting of Parliament.
HENRY VII :
Called Parliament rarely.
HENRY VIII :
1509-14. At first called a Parliament every year.
1514-29. During the period of Wolsey's power it met only once. Called
1523. to grant the King a large sum of money. Granted a smaller
sum. Wolsey preferred to rule with the aid of the Council and
the Star Chamber.
1529-36. The Reformation Parliament. Passed the Acts necessary for the
separation of the Church of England from the Church of Rome,
and for the establishment of the King as Head of the Church.
1529-44. Parliament twice cancelled Henry's debts, and gave his pro-
1539. clamations the force of law.
No abbots or priors in the House of Lords after the dissolution
of the monasteries.
ELIZABETH:
Summoned Parliaments from time to time, for short meetings.
Not quite so submissive as Parliaments of Henry VIII. Queen
avoided, as far as possible, asking Parliament for grants of
money.
Parliament readily passed the laws relating to the religious
settlement, and those needed after 1570 in reply to the papal
sentence of excommunication and deposition.
Friction between Parliament and the Queen on
(1) The question of her marriage.
(2) Certain religious matters.
1601. (3) The monopoly question, on which the Queen gave way.
REASONS FOR ABSENCE OF ANTAGONISM BETWEEN CROWN AND
PARLIAMENT IN THE TUDOR PERIOD:
{1) Infrequency of the meeting of Parliament.
(2) The presence of members who would support the Crown.
(а) In the Lords — the newer nobility and the bishops.
(б) In the Commons — the summoning of members from
towns of little importance but certain loyalty.
(3) Disinclination to embark upon internal conflict in view of
the national danger from Spam.
(4) Crown and Parliament with common aims — nothing to
quarrel about. Nation trusted Crown.
3io
SUMMARY
THE STUART PERIOD
22. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS
a king: •
Either an official of high rank, or Divinely appointed.
divine right (as believed by the Stuarts and their supporters):
The king is appointed to rule by God.
He is responsible to God and not to his people.
The people must obey and not rebel. Rebellion is a sin against
God as well as a crime against the king.
The people may not oppose the king in any way. They may
not depose him.
An unworthy king will be called to account by God after this life.
If the king rules harshly, the people are to regard his tyranny as
sent by God in punishment for their sins. The remedy is
repentance, prayer, and fasting.
HEREDITARY SUCCESSION:
At the king's death Divine Right passes to his eldest son or other
nearest relative.
A usurping king has no Divine Right and never obtains it.
The rightful king and his successors retain Divine Right, no
matter for how long they may be dispossessed.
the king's duty:
It is the duty as well as the right of the king to rule.
The king must hand on to his successor his power unimpaired
and undiminished.
If he yields any of his power to his subjects he is failing in his
duty towards God.
(Consequently, the most conscientious kings were the most
obstinate and unyielding.)
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND:
Accepted Divine Right as part of its doctrine. The Stuart
kings supported the Church.
ORIGIN OF THE THEORY:
In the Middle Ages Popes and Emperors both claimed the
lordship of the world. The Popes claimed to be Goas
representatives on earth. Therefore, the Emperors also
claimed Divine authority. In course of time this claim was
made by Kings also.
THE STUART PERIOD
3ii
23. RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN THE REIGN OF JAMES I
RELIGIOUS GROUPS AT THE ACCESSION OF JAMES IJ
(1) The Church:
As settled by Elizabeth. Most of the people approved of it.
(2) Puritans:
Wanted the Church to become more Protestant. Many in the
Church. Some outside it, forming separate congregations.
Hoped for support from James, a Puritan King.
(3) Papists:
Mostly recusants, though some attended church to avoid
payment of fines. Hoped for better treatment from James
than from Elizabeth, since they had suffered for their support
of Mary Stuart, James’s mother.
JAMES 1:
Brought up as a Presbyterian. Disliked Presbyterian system.
In England he became head of the Church. Preferred English
to Scottish system.
PURITANS AND ARMINIANS:
Puritans wished for further reformation in the Church. Wanted
abolition of ceremonial. Wanted doctrinal changes in the
direction of Calvinism. Some wanted abolition of episcopacy.
Arminians opposed Puritans. Against any further change in the
direction of Protestantism. Catholic in doctrine. Wanted
medieval ceremonial, vestments, etc., to be revived or retained.
Considered episcopacy essential.
THE PURITANS DURING THE REIGN:
Millenary Petition :
Presented to James on his way to London from Scotland.
Led to
Hampton Court Conference:
Discussion of points raised in the Petition. Settled against
Puritans.
The Bible :
New translation ordered by the Conference. Published in
1611. The present Authorised Version.
Pilgrim Fathers:
Some Puritans left England and went to Holland. Later, went
to North America. Settlement at Plymouth.
THE PAPISTS DURING THE REIGN:
( 1 ) Loyalists:
Hoped for better treatment as the result of loyalty. At first
seemed to be successful. Laws relaxed. Increased numbers
of recusants. James alarmed. Laws enforced.
(2) Jesuits:
Aimed at plotting against the King, and foreign invasion.
1603.
1604.
1604.
1620.
SUMMARY
312
1605. Gunpowder Plot :
Failed. Resulted in
(1) Sterner laws against Papists.
(2) Popular distrust of Papists.
ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY:
1604. John Whitgift:
Died in 1604.
1604-10. Richard Bancroft:
Acted energetically against Puritans.
1610-33. George Abbot:
Of Puritan views. Little influence at court.
24. CROWN AND PARLIAMENT IN THE STUART PERIOD
THE king:
Thought it to be his right and duty to rule the country as his
predecessors had done.
parliament:
Met only occasionally, when summoned by the king. Long
periods without Parliament. No share in ruling the country.
But (1) Only Parliament could make a law.
(3) Only Par liam ent could levy a tax.
Yet (1) Few new laws were required.
(2) Little taxation was imposed (for Goverimient did not
undertake so many expensive activities as it does
now).
finance:
It was held that “The king should live of his own." The king
should rule the country and should pay the ordinary exp 21 *®
of government out of his own income. His ordinary income
should suffice for ordinary purposes, but if some special
expense should arise (such as a war) Parliament was expecie
to make a grant.
King's ordinary income:
(1) From Crown lands.
(2) From feudal payments made by other landowners.
(a) From tunnage and poundage — import duties sanctioned y
Parliament at the beginning of each reign for the term
the king's life.
meeting of parliament:
At the beginning of reign — to grant the new king tunnage an
AtTheftoS-H a war broke out, or if a new law was required.
Parliament was expected to act upon the royal request
reco nunc n da tio n .
THE STUART PERIOD 313
STUART DIFFICULTIES :
The influx of gold and silver from America to Europe in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries caused a general rise in
prices. Money was worth less. Yet the king's income did
not expand, or did so more slowly, and the Stuart kings found
it difficult to make both ends meet. In debt. Therefore
regarded (unjustly) as extravagant. Had to call Parliament
and ask for money. Parliament blamed king’s ministers, and
tried to secure right of compelling king to dismiss them and
appoint others of whom they approved. King resented
this claim.
But until Parliament secured the right of meeting regularly it
could do little towards accomplishing its aims.
25. THE PARLIAMENTS OF JAMES I
PARLIAMENT IN ELIZABETH’S REIGN t
Little friction with Crown, because
(1) Queen rarely needed to ask for money.
(2) Foreign danger. . .
(3) After Armada, Queen s position secure. Nation and
Parliament would not oppose her.
AIMS OF PARLIAMENT IN JAMES I’S REIGN J
(1) To secure a share in the work of government.
(2) To bring about the removal of unpopular ministers.
1604-11. first parliament:
1604. Granted the King tunnage and poundage for life.
1606. Laws against Roman Catholics.
1607. Proposal for union between England and Scotland rejected.
Increased duty on currants. Bate’s case. Book of Rates.
1610. Parliament protested against the New Impositions.
1610. The Great Contract. Proposal to abolish feudal dues and give
the King £200,000 per annum. Fell through.
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND PARLIAMENTS :
King raised money by
(1) Borrowing.
(2) Offering the title of “ Baronet ” to any one who would give
or lend him £1000.
1614. SECOND PARLIAMENT (ADDLED):
Failure of the "Undertakers.” No money granted. Parliament
dissolved.
1621-2. third parliament:
1621. Impeachments revived.
Impeachment of Bacon, Lord Chancellor, for taking bribes.
Removed from office.
SUMMARY
3i4
1622. Petition to King against proposed marriage of Prince of Wales to
a Spanish princess. King censured Parliament for meddling
with affairs of State. Commons claimed right to discuss all
State affairs. King tore the page containing the claim out
of the Commons' Journal. Parliament dissolved.
1624. fourth parliament:
Passed law against monopolies.
Impeached Earl of Middlesex, Lord High Treasurer, for
embezzlement.
ACHIEVEMENTS OF PARLIAMENT DURING THE REIGN:
(1) Revival of impeachments.
(2) Removal of two prominent ministers.
(3) Law against monopolies.
(4) Protest against the New Impositions.
(5) Made a claim to discuss all State affairs.
But no claim was yet made to meet regularly.
26. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF JAMES I
STATE OF AFFAIRS AT BEGINNING OF REIGN:
War with Spain.
Two parties in England:
(1) For continuance of war.
(2) For peace.
king’s policy :
Preferred peace to war, because he had confidence in his diplo-
matic ability. He believed he could gain more by diplomacy
than by war.
1604. PEACE WITH SPAIN:
(1) James reserved right to continue to help Dutch.
(2) James would not renounce right claimed by English to tra
with Spanish colonies.
1604- JAMES AND FRANCE:
16x0. Henry IV (Catholic, but favoured Huguenots) aimed at releasmg
France from the stranglehold of the Catholic powers (b P
and Spain). Alliance of Protestant powers (Dutch, Cemun
Protestant Princes, and England) with France, against P
1610. and the Empire. War threatened. Henry . as f s ^iri
France for some years was ruled by a regent. Mane de Me »
who allied with Spain.
1610- JAMES AND THE GERMAN PROTESTANT PRINCES:
1625. The alliance already formed was continued. .„ rh
1612. Frederick, Elector Palatine, married James's daughter, fcuzao
THE STUART PERIOD
315
1614- james and Spain:
1624. James hoped to avert altogether the European war which was
about to begin in 1610 by securing a dominant position from
which he could influence both sides in favour of a peaceful
settlement. He already stood well with the German Protestant
princes. He now tried to obtain the alliance of Spain.
Proposed marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales, with a Spanish
princess. Great difficulties.
1616. Raleigh's expedition to Guiana. Inconsistent with real friend-
ship with Spain, but sanctioned because of James’s monetary
1618. difficulties. Failure. Death of Raleigh.
1618- THE THIRTY YEARS WAR*.
1648. Frederick, Elector Palatine, chosen by Protestants tolbe King of
Bohemia. Driven out of Bohemia by Catholics. Spain
joined in the war and drove Frederick out of the Palatinate.
War became general.
James tried to stop it by inducing Spain to withdraw from
Palatinate. No actual help sent to the Elector at this time.
Prince of Wales and Duke of Buckingham visited Madrid, but
marriage negotiations made no progress. They returned.
Negotiations dropped.
1624. WAR WITH SPAIN:
English help under Count Mansfeld sent to the Elector.
1625. Failure. James died.
27. JAMES I AND HIS MINISTERS
JAMES 1:
Well educated. Versed in logic. Theological knowledge. In
advance of his time
(1) In advocating union of England and Scotland.
(2) In preferring peace to war.
His foreign policy represented a great ideal, though he was
unable to carry it out.
SIR ROBERT CECIL, EARL OF SALISBURY:
1603-12. Leading minister. Cautious. Favoured peace.
SIR EDWARD COKE:
1616. Attorney-General. Became Lord Chief Justice. Not in favour
at Court Dismissed.
FRANCIS BACON:
1621. Attorney-General. Became Lord Chancellor. Fell from power
as the result of impeachment.
ROBERT CARR, EARL OF SOMERSET:
The King’s favourite for a time. Fell from favour.
3i6
SUMMARY
GEORGE VILLIERS, DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM:
Lord High Admiral. Directed King's policy towards end of
1623. reign. Accompanied Prince of Wales to Madrid. Arminian.
Disliked by Puritans. Proud. Disliked by nobles.
Of considerable ability. Tried to secure co-operation of Parlia-
1621-8. ment with the King. Five Parliaments met during the period
of his greatest influence. Strengthened navy.
28. THE EARLY YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES I
1625-9*
CHARLES i:
Young. Well educated. Deeply religious. Not of great ability.
Hesitating. Often changed his mind. Did not fully trust
his advisers. Obstinate in following what he thought to be
his duty. Firm belief in Divine Right.
1625. Marriage with Henrietta Maria, a French princess. His children
being of French blood, showed strong inclination to follow
a pro-French policy in the later Stuart period. Henrietta
Maria's influence over him was considerable after the first
few years of their married life.
1625. FIRST PARLIAMENT:
Finance :
King expected grant of tunnage and poundage for life. Asked
for twelve subsidies for the war with Spain.
Parliament granted tunnage and poundage for one year, and
two subsidies.
Buckingham :
Parliament made complaints. King understood that if he
would dismiss Buckingham he might have the money for
which he asked. He dissolved Parliament.
1625. WAR WITH SPAIN:
Cadiz Expedition :
To capture Cadiz and secure treasure fleet upon its arrival
from America.
Advantages of the plan:
(1) Blow to Spain.
(2) Relief from financial difficulties.
(3) Would make King and Buckingham popular.
Failure.
1626 second parliament:
Impeachment of Buckingham :
Charges not well chosen. Did not amount to treason.
Impeachment held up by imprisonment of Sir John Eliot.
Eliot released. Impeachment renewed. Parliament dissolved.
THE STUART PERIOD
317
1627. WAS WITH FRANCE;
A mistake, in view of the King's financial difficulties.
Real cause :
Antagonism of Buckingham and Richelieu.
Money:
Raised by forced loan.
Rochelle Expedition :
To assist Huguenots who were being besieged by Richelieu in
Rochelle. Failure, due to lack of reinforcements.
162&-9. third parliament:
1628. First session :
Parliament passed the
Petition of Right :
(1) No tax or loan without consent of Parliament.
(2) No imprisonment without cause.
(3) No billeting of soldiers and sailors on private persons.
(4) No trials by martial law in peace-time.
Parliament granted King five subsidies.
Second Rochelle Expedition :
1628. Prepared. Buckingham murdered.
1629. Second session:
Complaints of
(1) Continued levying of tunnage and poundage.
(2) Imprisonment of a member of the Commons.
(3) King’s advancement of Arminian clergy.
Resolutions of protest passed amid violent scene. Parliament
dissolved. King resolved to rule without Parliament.
29. THE NON-PARLIAMENTARY RULE OF CHARLES I
1629-40.
THE king's position:
He determined to rule without Parliament. He would get no
parliamentary help in his wars. Therefore he must do without
wars. Made peace with France and Spain. Abandoned the
Elector’s cause. He might continue to rule without Parliament
so long as war was avoided.
finance:
The King supplemented his ordinary income in various ways,
vexatious but not illegal.
(1) Tunnage and poundage levied, on the grounds that
(a) There was long precedent.
(b) King was entitled to regulate trade.
(c) It had not been forbidden in the Petition of Right.
(2) Monopolies granted to companies. Not contrary to law
of 1624. King received initial payments and royalties.
3) Distraint of knighthood. King received fees or fines.
(4) Recovery of lost Crown lands.
(5) Ship-money. Hampden contested it, but the Court of
Exchequer Chamber decided in favour of the Crown.
3i8
SUMMARY
ministers:
Sir Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford:
Formerly opposed court, but supported King after the death
of Buckingham.
1628-33. President of the Council of the North.
1633-40. Lord Deputy of Ireland. In close touch with the King by
correspondence.
1633-45. William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury :
Arminian. Learned and able. Restored order in the Church.
Hated by the Puritans, especially for permitting “lawful
sports” on Sundays.
courts :
Star Chamber. I Used by the King in many way's in
Council of the North. [ maintaining his authority.
High Commission Court:
Used by Archbishop Laud in carrying out his reforms.
1633.
1638.
1639.
1640.
1640.
1640.
Scotland:
Charles visited Scotland, in company with Laud, and was
crowned at Holyrood Abbey. Extended James I's measures
for uniting the Church of England and the Church of Scotland.
(1) More bishops, and more power for the bishops.
(2) Scottish clergy to wear surplices.
(3) Prayer Book to be used in the Scottish Church
Great opposition to the Prayer Book, because
(1) Scots objected to any set form of prayer.
(2) This book came from a foreign source — Canterbury.
General Assembly :
At Glasgow. Representative of Scottish Church and peop
(1) Abolished Prayer Book.
(2) Abolished bishops.
Committees appointed to control national affairs.
Covenant drawn up; accepted by thousands of the people.
King ordered Assembly to disperse. It refused. King gatne
forces and marched north.
No fighting. King met Leslie at Berwick and agreed to
another Assembly. He did this to gain time.
Short Parliament : . , . . He
Called by Charles in order that he might obtain money-
offered to give up ship-money in return for twelve subs
Parliament refused and was dissolved.
Second General Assembly : 1^0
At Edinburgh. Confirmed the proceedings of the nrst.
dissolved it.
^Scots^nvaded ^England and defeated Charles at Newburn.
319
THE STUART PERIOD
1640. Pacification of Ripon :
Scots to hoid Northumberland and Durham, and the King to
pay them £850 per day until the Scottish religious question
was settled.
1640. Great Council of Peers :
At York. Advised King to call a Parliament.
30. THE LONG PARLIAMENT: BEFORE THE OUTBREAK
OF THE GREAT REBELLION
1640-2.
AIM OF parliament:
To destroy the King’s system of government completely — his
ministers, his courts, his financial system, his ruling without
Parliament. King could not dissolve Parliament while the
Scots were in the country.
1640-1. FIRST session:
Ministers :
Strafford :
1640. Impeached. Charges did not amount to treason. Impeach-
ment dropped. Act of Attainder passed through Commons.
Lords passed it through fear of the mob. King consented
1641. reluctantly. Strafford beheaded.
Laud:
1640. Impeached. Not brought to trial at that time. Left in
the Tower.
1645. Beheaded.
Finance :
1641. Tunnage and poundage, ship-money, etc., declared illegal
without consent of Parliament.
Courts :
1641. Star Chamber, Council of the North, and High Commission
abolished.
Parliament :
1641. (1) This Parliament not to be dissolved without its own consent.
(2) Triennial Act. A Parliament to be summoned every
three years.
Grant of money :
164*. Parliament granted the King tunnage and poundage for two
months. Grant renewed every two months for about a year.
Split in the parliamentary party :
Some members thought that Parliament had gone far enough.
Others wanted to go farther and reduce the King’s power
to a mere shadow. Henceforth the Court party and the
opposition were nearly equal in strength.
1641. Root and Branch Bill:
A proposal to abolish bishops in the Church of England.
Vigorously opposed. Dropped.
SUMMARY
1641. INTERVAL B E TWEEN FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS:
King visited Scotland.
(1) Agreed to Scottish demands. Scottish army was with-
drawn from the north of England.
(2) “The Incident” occurred. Plot to arrest Presbyterian
leaders. King denied all knowledge of it.
(3) King found that parliamentary leaders had been in com-
munication with the Scottish army.
1641-42. second session :
1641. Grand Remonstrance :
King failed to reach London before it was passed. It was
presented to him.
1642. The Five Members : .
King attempted to arrest five members of the Commons lor
treason. Failed. He left London in order to raise forces
with which to return and forcibly dissolve Parliament.
1642.
1642.
1642.
The Bishops Act: . . TT , T .
Deprived bishops of their seats in the House of Lords
agreed, to gain time.
Militia : .
King would not consent to give up command.
Nineteen Propositions :
King refused to agree. No further negotiations.
King
31. THE GREAT REBELLION
1642-46.
king's aim: . , .
To raise forces and march on London in order o
Parliament.
parliament’s aim:
To hold out long enough to make terms with the King.
3642.
Country gentle-
king's support:
Most of the Lords and many of the Commons,
men and their followers. Churchmen.
parliament's support: „,„ r rhant
London and the large towns of the . sout ^'^ ™ the corn-
class. The Puritans. Parliamentary forces under ui
mand of the Earl of Essex.
F ^“ed army at Nottingham. H«
at Edgehill, but was unable to prevent ^ r “^ r J° n Tra in-
his march towards London. Kmg rwchedBre ^' works at
bands of London mustered to defend W-gag ^ Qxfofd
Tumham Green. King did not attack, but ret
for the winter.
THE STUART PERIOD
321
1642- 3. WINTER :
Both sides tried to strengthen forces.
1643. second campaign:
King planned threefold attack on London. Newcastle in the
north and Hopton in the south-west failed to advance. King
besieged Gloucester. Relieved by the London train-bands.
Train-bands defeated King at Newbury on their way back to
London. Hampden killed at Chalgrove. No great advantage
to either side by end of summer.
1643- 4. winter :
(1) King secured help of 10,000 Irish.
(2) Parliament made treaty with Scots. “Solemn League and
Covenant.” Scots to send 20,000 men to help Parliament, at
English expense, and on condition that Church of England
was made Presbyterian.
(3) Cromwell raised and trained a force of Puritan cavalry — the
Ironsides.
1644. THIRD CAMPAIGN:
King's Irish allies were defeated by Fairfax and many of them
took service with the parliamentary forces.
Cromwell besieged Newcastle at York. Rupert advanced to
relieve it and the siege was raised.
Battle of Marston Moor. Ironsides and Scots defeated Rupert.
King held his own in west and south-west.
1 644- 5. WINTER :
(1) New Model Army formed, on a Puritan basis, by Fairfax
and Cromwell.
(2) Self-denying Ordinance passed by Parliament. Members
of Parliament debarred from holding commands in the army.
Cromwell an exception. This measure was for the purpose
of getting rid of incompetent officers.
1645. fourth campaign:
Battle of Naseby. New Model Army defeated King. Decisive.
King tried to march to Scotland but was again defeated.
1646. fifth campaign:
New Model Army captured all remaining places, including
Oxford. War at an end. King surrendered to Scots at
Newark.
REASONS FOR THE KING’S FAILURE:
(1) Indifferent leadership. A characteristic of both sides at
first, but it was remedied on the Puritan side. Rupert acted
rashly. Hopton and Newcastle were second-rate commanders.
(2) King failed to grasp at his opportunity of victory in 1642.
(3) Defection of the navy.
(4) Value of the Scottish alliance to Parliament.
(5) Formation of the New Model Army.
322
SUMMARY
32. THE CAPTIVITY AND DEATH OF CHARLES I
164 6-9.
1646. KING A PRISONER OF THE SCOTS:
At Newark. He hoped to persuade them to restore him to the
throne.
Scottish demands of the King:
(1) The abolition of bishops and the establishment of Presby-
terianism in England.
(2) That he should take the Covenant.
King refused, hoping to secure better terms from English.
Scots surrendered the King to parliamentary commissioners in
return for payment of their arrears of pay (£400,000).
1647. KING A PRISONER OF PARLIAMENT:
At Holmby House.
Two groups in Parliament — Presbyterian and Independent.
Presbyterians more numerous in Parliament, but army mainly
Independent.
Parliament proposed to disband army with one-sixth of its pay.
Army, disliking this, determined to take possession of the
King. Cornet Joyce secured him.
1647. KING A PRISONER OF THE ARMY:
At Newmarket. Afterwards at Hampton Court.
Heads of the Proposals offered to the King by the Army Council.
Fair terms — better than the Nineteen Propositions. King
would not accept them.
1647- 8. KING AT CARISBROOKE:
Fled thither from Hampton Court. Negotiated with the Scots.
The Engagement :
Agreement between King and Scots.
(1) Scots to restore King to throne.
(2) King to establish Presbyterianism in England for three
years.
1648. SECOND CIVIL WAR:
Royalists )
English Presbyterians - v. New Model Army.
Scottish Presbyterians ) .
English Royalists defeated by Fairfax at Maidstone ana
Scots invaded England. Defeated by Cromwell at Preston,
Wigan, and Warrington.
1648- 9. TRIAL OF THE KING:
For the bloodshed of the Second Civil War.
Presbyterian majority in Parliament unwilling to appoint a cour
to try the King.
THE STUART PERIOD 323
Colonel Pride expelled the Presbyterian members. The Inde-
pendent remnant, known henceforth as the "Rump,” acted
as Parliament-
Court of 130 members appointed by the Rump. Many refused
to serve.
Trial in Westminster Hall. King sentenced to be beheaded.
1649. the king’s death:
At Whitehall. Charles behaved with dignity and courage.
Unwisdom of the act. The nation as a whole strongly dis-
approved. From this time Royalist opinion prevailed.
Puritan rule was possible only by force of arms. At the
earliest opportunity the people recalled Charles II.
33. OPPOSITION TO THE COMMONWEALTH
STATE OF AFFAIRS IN 1649:
Only the Rump left of the Long Parliament. It declared
(1) Monarchy and House of Lords to be abolished.
(2) England to be a Commonwealth and a Free State.
(3) A Council of State, of forty-one members, to rule.
Commonwealth opposed everywhere:
Royalist hostility in England.
Royalist revolt in Ireland.
Scotland ready to recognise Charles II.
Rupert in the Channel.
No foreign recognition. Possibility of foreign war.
1649. REVOLT OF THE LEVELLERS:
The Levellers were a Puritan faction. Numerous in the army.
Mutiny. Crushed by Cromwell. Discipline restored.
1649. IRELAND :
Ormond raised Royalist army. Garrisons in east coast towns.
Cromwell crossed over. Capture of Drogheda and Wexford and
massacre of garrisons. Resistance broken. Ormond fled.
Royalist lands confiscated and given to Puritan soldiers and to
Londoners who had financed the expedition. Ireton Governor
of Ireland. Stem rule.
1650. SCOTLAND:
Royalist rising, headed by Montrose, against Presbyterian
^ Government. Failed. Montrose put to death.
Charles II took the Covenant. Accepted as King of Scotland.
Crowned at Scone.
Cromwell invaded Scotland. Defeated Leslie at Battle of
Dunbar. Marched north against Charles, who marched into
England, hoping for a Royalist rising.
1651. Cromwell followed Charles. Battle of Worcester. King defeated.
Fled to France.
Scotland left under the governorship of General Monk.
SUMMARY
324
1652-3. DUTCH war:
Causes :
Economic :
Commercial rivalry.
1623. Massacre of Amboyna, hitherto unavenged.
1651. Navigation Act.
Political: •
Dutch support to Charles II.
Murder of Commonwealth ambassador to Holland.
Events :
Series of naval fights between Blake and Van Tromp.
Van Tromp slain at the Battle of the Texel.
1654. Peace:
Treaty of Westminster:
(1) Dutch to pay compensation for the massacre at Amboyna.
(2) Dutch to recognise Navigation Act.
STATE OF AFFAIRS IN 1653:
All opposition to the Commonwealth had been crushed. British
Isles sullen, but unable to rise. Foreign powers uneasy.
Realised that Commonwealth was powerful.
34. THE ORGANISATION OF PURITAN RULE
1649- THE RUMP IN POWER:
1653. ( x ) The Rump was Parliament.
(2) The Council of State ruled. Substantially the same members.
Unsatisfactory, especially to the army. While the army was
engaged in fighting no attempt was made to reform me
government, but the soldiers intended to establish a prope
government when hostilities ceased.
1653. proposed reform:
Proposed by Rump, to forestall army.
(1) New Parliament to be elected. . . fo
(2) Existing members to retain their seats without having
offer themselves for re-election. .
(3) Existing members to be entitled to pronounce upon ui
fitness of the newly elected.
Result would be merely an enlargement of the Rump. .
Proposal denounced as dishonest by Cromwell. Apparenuy
dropped.
1653. EXPULSION OF THE RUMP:
ruLJiv/n w. #
Cromwell discovered that the Rump was continuing witni
proposals. He censured the members for their duplicity
expelled them
Council of State dissolved.
THE STUART PERIOD
325
1653. Cromwell's rulb as general op the army:
No other authority left in the country than the army. Cromwell
anxious to establish a proper form of government.
1653. THE ROLE OF THE SAINTS?
Cromwell was at first attracted by the "Fifth Monarchy Men/’
who believed that Christ would shortly appear to rule, and
that until then the "Saints” should rule.
The Little Parliament. A group of 140 Puritans, summoned
by Cromwell. Failed. Not sufficiently practical. Dissolved.
Cromwell turned to the Army Council, which drew up the
Instrument of Government.
1653. INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT?
(1) England, Scotland, and Ireland to be a Protectorate, under
Cromwell as Lord Protector.
(2) Council of State of fifteen members.
(3) Parliament of 460 members. No more than three years
between Parliaments. . Parliaments to last at least five months.
(4) All persons (except Papists and Malignants) who possessed
property worth £200 to have votes.
(5) Parliament to make laws (not contrary to Instrument) and
to levy taxes.
(6) Protector not to veto laws.
(7) Protector to have revenue.
(8) Protector to make ordinances.
{9) Freedom of religion to all but Papists and Churchmen.
COMMENT ON THE INSTRUMENT?
Pro.
(1) Better than old system, in that electorate was revised, and
parliamentary seats were redistributed.
(2) Union of the whole of the British Isles.
(3) Freedom of religion (but this was only nominal).
Con.
(1) No means of removing an unsatisfactory Protector or
councillor.
(2) The question of supremacy was left unsettled.
35. THE PROTECTORATE OF OLIVER CROMWELL
RELIGION ?
Church clergy expelled from their livings unless they promised
not to use the Prayer Book. Vacancies filled by Puritan
ministers.
Church festivals no longer celebrated. Theatres dosed. Various
popular amusements suppressed. Various customs dis-
continued.
326
SUMMARY
PARLIAMENTS :
1654. First:
Friction with Protector. Parliament dissolved in twenty weeks.
1656-8. Second:
Many members opposed to Cromwell. He expelled more
than a hundred. Remainder drew up the
Humble Petition and Advice :
(1) Cromwell to become King.
(2) That a second House of Parliament should be established.
Cromwell refused the title of King but established a second
House. Renewed disagreements when Parliament met. He
dissolved it.
1655. the major-generals:
Plot against Cromwell's life. Failed. He maintained order by
dividing the country into ten districts, each under the rule 01
a major-general.
FOREIGN POLICY :
Spain and France still at war. * Both sought Cromwell's alliance.
Terms offered to Spain:
(1) Cost of war to be borne by Spain.
(2) English to have Calais.
(3) Direct English trade with Spanish colonies.
(4) English freedom from Inquisition.
Impossibility of acceptance.
Terms offered to France:
(1) Cost of war to be borne by France.
(2) English to receive Dunkirk.
(3) Persecution of the Vaudois by the Duke of Savoy to ceas .
Alliance made with France.
1655-8. WAR WITH SPAIN:
X655. Expedition to West Indies. Capture of Jamaica. destroye d
x657- Blake captured Spanish treasure ships. Spanish fleet d y
1658. New ModeUnFlanders. Battle of the Dunes. Spanish defeat.
Capture of Dunkirk.
1658. DEATH OF CROMWELL.
36. THE FALL OF PURITAN RULE
. 6<t8-Q RI pro^ctor. OI ^ot "fitted for the office. Disliked it No army
Protector. Qf ^ parity, bur several
against Protector and against each other. A Parliam
called and was soon dissolved. Artnv.
Fleetwood demanded to be appointed General of th«
Rid^d refused. Quarrel developed. Richard reargued.
THE STUART PERIOD
327
THE generals:
The Rump reassembled. Denounced the Protectorate. Lam-
bert quelled a Royalist rising. Returned to London and
expelled the Rump. Rivalry of Lambert and Fleetwood
continued.
monk:
1660. Left Scotland and marched to London without expressing his
intentions. Forces of Lambert and those of Fleetwood
deserted to join Monk.
The Rump, again restored, was compelled to receive back the
Presbyterian members expelled by Pride. Sanctioned its own
dissolution.
Monk ordered election of a new Parliament (or Convention).
1660. DECLARATION OF BREDA:
Issued by Charles II from Breda, in Holland. Promised:
(1) General pardon, except to those excepted by Parliament.
(2) Payment and disbandment of army.
(3) Settlement of land question by Parliament.
(4) Liberty to tender consciences.
1660. the king:
Invited to return. Landed at Dover. Entered London on his
thirtieth birthday.
ADVANTAGES OF PURITAN RULE:
(1) Order maintained.
(2) Union of British Isles effected.
(3) Vigorous foreign policy. England feared and respected
abroad.
REASONS FOR FAILURE OF PURITAN RULE:
(1) Not based on support of people, who were alienated by
vexatious law's and by interference with old customs.
(a) Rested on support of the army only.
(3) Doomed to failure by the execution of Charles I.
37. THE SETTLEMENT OF AFFAIRS AFTER THE
RESTORATION
STATE OF AFFAIRS:
Commonwealth period disregarded. King’s reign dated from
1649. Acts of Cromwellian Parliaments treated as null and
void, though some of them were re-enacted (e.g. the Naviga-
tion Act).
But the Cromwellian conquests (Dunkirk and Jamaica) were
retained.
No attempt was made to overthrow the early Acts of the Long
Parliament, which had received the assent of Charles I. (The
Bishops Act was repealed and the bishops were restored to
their seats in the House of Lords.)
328
SUMMARY
the king's income:
(1) From the Crown lands.
(2) From tunnage and poundage, which was granted for life.
<3) From the excise on beer and wines, which had been estab-
lished in Commonwealth times. The feudal dues, which had
been abolished under the Commonwealth, were not revived.
It was estimated that the King would receive £1,200,000 per
annum from these sources. Actually received much less.
the army:
Paid and disbanded, except that two regiments and a few troops
of horse were retained as guards.
PUNISHMENT OF REBELS:
General pardon. Those who had been concerned in the death
of Charles I (members of the court which tried him) were
excepted. Thirteen put to death, twenty-five imprisoned for
life.
Bodies of Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw were disinterred and
hanged.
LAND QUESTION:
Lands of Crown and Church restored.
Cavaliers whose lands had been confiscated received them back,
but those who had sold their lands, even on behalf of uie
King, were unrewarded.
1663.
1661.
1662.
ieligion: .
Church of England restored. Surviving bishops fe^ed their
sees. Vacancies filled. Juxon appointed to Canterbury
Sheldon to London (to Canterbuir after Juxon s death).
Attempt to bring about a reconciliation between Puritans an
Church. Savoy Conference. Failed. rhurch
Act of Uniformity. To expel Puritan ministers from Lnurc
livings unless they would
(1) Be ordained by a bishop.
(2) Use the Prayer Book.
(3) Renounce the Covenant. ovrwlled on
Some conformed. Most of them refused and were expelle
St. Bartholomew’s Day.
Scotland:
The union was disregarded. r . Iirrh of Scotland
Everything done since 1633 was rescinded. Church of ^ ^
horame eoiscopal once more, but the Prayer Boo
restored.
Argyll put to death for treason.
Scotland ruled by Lauderdale and Sharp.
Persecution of Covenanters.
THE STUART PERIOD
329
IRELAND :
Difficulty of settling land question.
1661. Act of Settlement. Confirmed grant of land to Puritan veterans,
yet ordered restoration of lands to Irish Royalists.
1665. Act of Explanation. Passed when it became clear that there
was not sufficient land to satisfy all claims. Cromwellian
grants reduced by one-third.
Duke of Ormond made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Church of Ireland restored, but Roman Catholic worship per-
mitted.
RESULTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE:
(1) The old system of personal government, that of Charles I,
was not restored.
(2) Parliament met regularly in future, and was to be regarded as
part of the machinery of government.
(3) King determined to control Parliament henceforth. Begin-
ning of the period of corruption.
38. CHARLES II
THE KING:
Apparently idle and dissolute, leaving the work of government
to others.
Really the ablest of the Stuart kings.
Controlled main lines of policy, though he left details to
others. Allowed it to appear that his ministers controlled
policy, so that blame for unpopular measures fell upon them.
Controlled Parliament by corrupt means.
Supported Church of England. For a time veered towards
Church of Rome, but finding this policy unsafe he abandoned it.
Accepted money from Louis XIV, but was not under Louis’
control.
No moral or religious principle. Yet firm belief in Divine Right.
General determination to retain his throne and, as far as possible,
his power.
louis xiv :
His aims:
(1) To secure for France natural boundaries.
(2) To secure the Rhine boundary by the conquest of the
Spanish Netherlands and part of the United Netherlands.
(3) To secure the throne of Spain (for himself or for a member
of his family) on the death of Charles II of Spain.
(4) To become Holy Roman Emperor.
(5) To establish the Roman Catholic faith in England. For
this purpose he was willing to pay large sums of money to
Charles II in order to make him independent of Parliament.
clarendon:
1660-7. Lord Chancellor. Chief minister of Charles II.
Carried out the settlement of affairs, already described.
330
SUMMARY
Persecution of Puritans (Clarendon not altogether responsible
for it).
1661. (i) Members of corporations to be Churchmen.
1662. (2) Puritan ministers expelled under the Act of Uniformity.
1664. (3) Conventicles forbidden.
1665. (4) Expelled ministers to live at least five miles from towns.
Foreign policy. French alliance.
King married Catherine of Braganza, Portuguese princess.
Dunkirk sold to Louis. Unpopular, but wise.
1 665-7. Dutch War :
Cause :
1660. Renewal and strengthening of Navigation Act.
Events :
Colonial fighting in North America.
1665. Naval battle off Lowestoft. Indecisive.
English harried Dutch shipping. Then fleet laid up.
1667. Dutch sailed up Thames and Medway to Chatham.
Burned ships and dockyard.
1667. Treaty of Breda :
English retained New Amsterdam (New York) and New
Jersey.
1665. Great Plague:
Heavy mortality.
1666. Great Fire:
No lives lost. City rebuilt.
1667. Fall of Clarendon: . .
He had become unpopular with all parties. Suggested
impeachment. Clarendon alarmed. Fled to France. Act
of Attainder. Remainder of his life spent in France.
1667-73. the cabal :
Five ministers : . . . .
King really controlled affairs and policy. No minister enure y
in his confidence.
King's policy :
To become Roman Catholic.
To ally with France.
To become absolute — independent of Parliament.
1668.
1670.
Triple Alliance : . . ,
England, Holland, and Sweden against France. Charles s re*
intention was to ally with France, and he awaited a propo
from Louis to that effect. -
Treaty of Dover : . , .
(1) Alliance of England and France in the forthcoming
with the Dutch.
(2) Charles to become a Roman Catholic.
(3) Louis to pay Charles 2,000,000 livres. f
(4) Louis to help Charles with 6000 troops in the event o
Greater part of treaty secret, even from the members of the Cabal.
33i
THE STUART PERIOD
1672-4. Dutch War:
French invasion. Land flooded. Alliance against France
formed by Stadtholder, William of Orange.
Naval battle between English and Dutch off Southwold.
1674. Charles made peace.
1678. Louis continued war till 1678. Peace by Treaty of Nijmegen.
Religion :
1673. King attempted to conciliate Dissenters (Puritans) by the issue
of a Declaration of Indulgence. Penal laws suspended.
Applied equally to Papists. Unconstitutional. Strong
criticism in Parliament. Suspicion of the King's Romanising
policy. Declaration withdrawn.
1673. Test Act:
No Papist to hold office under the Crown. Many men in
public positions resigned, including Duke of York, the King’s
brother and Lord High Admiral, and two members of the
Cabal.
King abandoned his policy of securing absolute power by
turning Roman Catholic.
1673-7. danby :
King's chief minister for some years. Strong supporter of
Crown and Church. Preferred Dutch to French alliance.
King still friendly with Louis and accepted money from him.
1677. Marriage:
William of Orange with Princess Mary of York. Indicated
Dutch friendship. Louis alarmed, as his war with the
Dutch was still proceeding.
Louis :
Paid money to Charles on several occasions:
(1) To secure a postponement of the meeting of Parliament,
which might insist upon Charles entering the war on the
Dutch side.
(2) To secure promise of neutrality from Charles.
1678. Popish Plot:
Revealed by Titus Oates. Probably with little or no foundation.
Plot supposed to be to kill the King, enthrone York, and
massacre Protestants.
Much public excitement. Many innocent Roman Catholics
put to death, on information supplied by Oates.
Growing demand for the exclusion of the Duke of York, the
King's brother and heir, from the succession to the throne.
1678. Parliamentary Test Act. Excluded Papists from Parliament.
1679. Fall of Danby :
Louis disliked Danby because of his preference for an Anglo-
Dutch alliance. Danby had, at the King's command,
written a letter to Louis which seemed to point to his
secretly following an Anglo-French policy. Letter sent by
Louis to Danby's opponents. Danby impeached. King
332 SUMMARY
dissolved Parliament, which had existed since 1661, to save
Danby, and to prevent revelations being made of his
negotiations with Louis XIV.
1679-81. THE EXCLUSION STFUGGLB:
Whigs :
King's opponents in Parliament. Led by Shaftesbury, a strong
Protestant and a former member of the Cabal. Aimed at
securing the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne.
Relied for support upon the mob, still excited over the
Popish Plot.
Tories:
Supporters of the Court.
The King's policy:
To preserve his brother's right of succession. To play a
waiting game as far as possible. He thought that the power
of the Whigs would die away when popular excitement
against the Papists died down.
1679. First Short Parliament:
Strongly Whig and Protestant.
Habeas Corpus Act passed. To secure release of persons
imprisoned without being brought to trial.
Exclusion Bill. Passed second reading in Commons. King
dissolved Parliament.
1680. Second Short Parliament :
Elected in October, 1679, but did not meet until October, 1680.
King postponed meeting, hoping that anti-popish feeling
would diminish.
Exclusion Bill passed Commons. Rejected by Lords.
Commons refused to grant money to King. Parliament
dissolved.
1681. Third Short Parliament :
Met at Oxford, away from the London mob. Oxford loyal.
King negotiated with Whigs, who would not listen to
proposals for compromise, but still demanded the Duke's
exclusion. King received money from Louis. Independent
of parliamentary grant. Dissolved Parliament and never
called another.
1682-5. the LAST years OF the Reign:
Whigs: .
Ceased to exist as a party. Prominent Whigs punished.
Shaftesbury charged with treason. Released. Organised a
rising, which failed. Fled to Holland. Died.
1683. Rye House Plot :
Failed. Sidney and Russell executed.
Town charters confiscated:
New charters granted, securing Tory predominance in towns.
1685. Death of Charles 1 1 :
Roman Catholic.
THE STUART PERIOD
39. JAMES II
333
THE king:
A better man than Charles II but not so able.
Firm believer in Divine Right.
Popular at flrst, despite the recent excitement of the people
against Papists. , , . _ ,
Roman Catholic. Promised to support the Church of England
and to regard his religion as his private affair.
POLICY OF JAMES II :
(1) To rule as an absolute monarch as far as possible.
(2) To ally with Louis XIV.
(3) To restore the Roman Catholic faith in England.
1685. parliament:
Strongly Tory. Granted James a revenue of £1,900,000 per
annum. Kang independent of both Parliament and France.
1685. rebellions:
Organised by Whig exiles in Holland.
Argyll's Rebellion :
In Scotland. Failed to rouse the clans. Argyll captured and
executed.
Monmouth's Rebellion :
In south-west England. Monmouth landed at Lyme Regis.
Proclaimed King at Taunton. Defeated and captured at
Sedgemoor. Put to death. Bloody Assize.
THE KING'S ROMANISING MEASURES:
1686. Claim to the Dispensing Power :
Commission to Sir Edward Hales, Roman Catholic, with a
dispensation authorising him to hold it without taking the
oath required by the Test Act. Judges decided that the
dispensation was legal. Many appointments of Roman
Catholics to posts at court and in the public service. Test
Act no longer enforced.
The Universities :
King attempted to establish Roman Catholic influence in the
universities by appointing a Roman Catholic president to
Magdalen College, Oxford, and by introducing monks at
Cambridge.
1686. Ecclesiastical Commission Court :
Established by James. Illegal, in view of the Act of 1641
which abolished the High Commission Court.
1687. Claim to the Suspending Power:
Two Declarations of Indulgence issued by the King, relieving
Dissenters from the penalties imposed by law. King
ordered second Declaration to be read in churches. Refusal
of the clergy. Petition of seven bishops that James would
not enforce the reading of the Declaration.
1688. Trial of the Seven Bishops:
For a libel on the King. Acquitted. Public rejoicing.
M 2
334
SUMMARY
army:
King gathered an army of 13,000 men, mostly Roman Catholics,
at Hounslow, to meet any possible rebellion.
1688. BIRTH OF THE PRINCE OF WALES:
Public dismay. The infant Prince became heir to the throne
instead of the Princess Mary of Orange. Hitherto a Protestant
succession had been expected, but the Prince would be brought
up as a Roman Catholic and might be expected to continue
his father’s policy.
1688. THE INVITATION:
Seven leading men. Whig and Tory, sent to William of Orange
an invitation to come over and overthrow King James.
JAMES Il's FOREIGN POLICY:
1686. William formed the League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.
James sided with Louis against the League. League not very
powerful without the adhesion of England. William was
willing to accept the invitation in order to secure the su PP° rt
of England in the forthcoming war between Louis and the
League.
1688. william’s coming:
Louis warned James of his danger and threatened to attack the
Dutch if they sent an expedition to England. James resented
Louis' action. Louis modified his policy. He permitted
William to reach England and expected to be called upon to
support James. He would thus defeat William and reduce
Tames to subservience at the same time.
William landed at Torbay. Marched to Exeter. Englis
support after a few days. General desertion of James. William
moved slowly towards London. James fled to France.
CAUSES OF THE FALL OF JAMES: . f
(1) His Romanising policy— unconstitutional and in defiance 01
public opinion.
(2) His attack on the seven bishops.
(3) His maintenance of a standing army.
(a) The birth of the Prince of Wales. f
(5 His foreign policy. If he had supported the League of
Augsburg it is probable that William would not have acted
upon the invitation.
40. COLONIES AND TRADE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
1580.
SIXTEENTH-CENTURY COLONISATION:
English and French efforts to establish colonies failed.
Spanish settlements in the West. Portuguese in the
Spain conquered Portugal. Portuguese
Spanish. England and Holland at war with Spam at end ot
century.
THE STUART PERIOD
335
east indies:
1600. English East India Company :
Factories on Indian coast.
1612. Surat.
1639. Madras.
1668. Bombay.
1696. Fort William (Calcutta).
Less success in East Indian Archipelago. Dutcn opposition.
1623. Massacre of Amboy na.
1602. Dutch East India Company:
Strong antagonism to English. Settlements on islands.
1664. French East India Company :
No antagonism before eighteenth century.
NORTH AMERICA!
Northern group of settlements:
Puritan. White labour. Agriculture, lumbering, shipbuilding.
Various settlements, including
1620. Plymouth (Pilgrim Fathers).
1629. Massachusetts.
Southern group of settlements:
Aristocratic settlers. Anglican and Tory. Labour of slaves
and convicts. Tobacco. Various settlements, including
1607. Virginia.
1632. Maryland.
1663. The Carolinas.
1681. Pennsyl vania :
Quaker. Religious toleration, but laws on moral matters.
West Indies:
Convict and negro slave labour. Tobacco produced at first.
Sugar introduced. Islands became important as “sugar
colonies.” Included
1623. St. Kitts.
1625. Barbados.
1655. Jamaica. By conquest.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COLONIES:
(1) Small as compared with Dominions of the present day. No
large surplus of population at home.
(2) Islands or coast settlements. No interior penetration before
the construction of railways.
(3) Regarded not as beginnings of new nations, but as outposts
of mother country. Produced articles which mother country
could not produce and provided markets for manufactured
products of mother country.
(4) Trade of colonies under control of mother country, by
Navigation Acts.
(5) Mother country responsible for colonial defence.
(6) Politically advanced. Colonial assemblies represented settlers.
Made laws.
336
SUMMARY
NAVIGATION ACTS:
(1) Enumerated articles to be sent only to England.
(2) Non-enumerated articles might be exported anywhere.
(3) All exports from colonies, whether enumerated or non-
enumerated, to be carried in English or colonial ships. Such
ships were to be owned and commanded by Englishmen or
colonials and three-quarters of the crew were to be English or
colonial.
Advantage of system to England :
Monopoly of colonial produce to detriment of other countries.
Profit on resale to other countries.
Advantage of system to colonies :
Sure market and steady price.
TRADING COMPANIES!
Monopolistic. Charter from Crown. Carried on most of the
country's foreign trade. Included:
Merchant Adventurers. North Sea and Baltic.
Muscovy Company. Russia.
Levant Company. Eastern Mediterranean.
East India Company. Cape of Good Hope to Cape Horn.
Guinea Company. West Africa.
Hudson’s Bay Company. North of North America.
Advantages of company trading over individual effort :
(1) Company would strive, by fair dealing, to maintain English
good name in remote regions. # ... ,
(2) Company powerful enough to bargain with foreign rulers
for privileges.
(3) Company could take effective measures against pirates.
(4) Company could be more easily controlled by the Govern-
ment. Would not countenance smuggling.
Interlopers :
Never entirely put down. Adventurous.
FOREIGN COLONIAL POLICY:
More exclusive than that of England. Spain would not allow
foreign trade with her colonies, nor even colomal trade wiui
Spain other than with a privileged company at Seville.
Continued English efforts to break down Spanish monopoly.
41. THE REVOLUTION
william’s arrival IN LONDON:
LeeallY, no king. Foreign invader. Government at “
£me disorder. Quickly suppressed. A meeting of leading
men asked William to summon a Convention.
1689. the convention:
Its business :
To settle the Government of the country.
THE STUART PERIOD
337
Parties .*
Whies. Majority in Commons. .
(1) No belief in Divine Right. Wanted the election of a
king by Parliament in order to assert the supremacy of
Parliament over the Crown.
(2) Wanted to exclude Roman Catholics from the throne.
Tories. Majority in Lords.
(1) Belief in Divine Right. Wanted a settlement that would
not conflict with that principle. .
(2) Wanted to exclude James and retain William as ruler ot
the country.
Proposed solutions :
(1) James as King in exile — William as Regent.
(2) James treated as mad — William as Regent.
(3) James treated as dead— Mary to be regarded as having
succeeded to throne — William would be Prince Consort
(this would disregard the claim of the infant Prince of Wales).
But William refused to be either Regent or Prince Consort.
The Settlement:
(1) No Papist to be king in future.
(2) Crown conferred on William and Mary jointly. This
arrangement was intended to meet the views of both parties
as far as possible.
1689. Declaration of Right :
Really a statement of the conditions on which the Crown was
being offered to William and Mary.
Declared illegal:
(1) Excessive and cruel punishments.
(2) Ecclesiastical Commission Court.
(3) Suspending power.
(4) Dispensing power as used of late.
(5) Standing army in peace-time without parliamentary
consent.
Crown :
Offered to and accepted by William and Mary.
Convention :
Declared to be a Parliament.
1689. THE BILL OF RIGHTS:
Enactment of the Declaration of Right by Parliament with the
royal assent, so that it became a law.
Succession :
Included in the Bill of Rights.
(1) William and Mary jointly.
(2) Survivor.
(3) Their children.
(4) Children of Mary, if she outlived William and married
again.
(5) Princess Anne and her descendants.
(6) Children of William, if he outlived Mary and married
again.
%
SUMMARY
SE T TL EMENT OF OTHER MATTERS AFTER THE REVOLUTION:
1689.
1689.
Finance:
King's personal income and money for government voted
separately in future.
King's personal income (Civil List) voted for life.
Money for government voted for a year at a time. Necessary
for Par liam ent to meet every year.
Appropriation of Supplies. Money to be spent on purpose
for which it was voted.
Audit of Accounts. After money had been spent.
Religion: .
Toleration Act passed, permitting Dissenters to worship in
their own conventicles.
William's plan of “comprehension” failed.
Army : . ,
Mutiny Act passed, authorising existence of army lor six
months. Renewed annually. Necessity for annual meeting
of Parliament.
Scotland:
The position: . ,
No Scottish invitation had been sent to William, and the
Scots were not bound to follow English example in deposing
James. They did follow England because of persecution ol
Covenanters during reigns of Charles II and James IL
1689. ^convention at Edinburgh. Drew up Claim of Right-
Presented to and accepted by William Mary, f w s h ° S
offered the Crown jointly as in England. Church of Scotland
to be Presbyterian.
1689. Hl g^ oused by Graham of Claver house in s upp° f t of Jam^-
Really in opposition to the predominance of the CampDeuj
who were Whig. Battle of Kdliecranlue. Clavegouse
defeated Mackay but was slam. Clans djpe'jgj*.
advanced into the Highlands. Ordered all chieftams to take
oath of allegiance to William by end of 1691- ^ d,d £
except Mac Ian, chief of the Macdonalds of Glencoe, who
1692* was late. Massacre of Glencoe.
Irish were Roman Catholic and were ready to suP^rtJan
against William. James intended to begin with
the recovery of his position, but the real Irish aim was th
- HE? SJsrfc
and y Enniskillen. Both towns besieged. Both held
successfully.
#
339
THE STUART PERIOD
1689. William sent troops to Ireland and followed them next year.
1690. Battle of the Boyne. James defeated. Fled to France.
Reconquest completed by Ginkel and Churchill. Much fighting.
1691. Capture of Limerick.
1691. Treaty of Limerick : ,
(1) Irish troops might lay down arms, or enter William s
service, or go abroad and enter service of Louis.
(2) Roman Catholic worship to be permitted in Ireland.
1695. Protestant Parliament disregarded terms of treaty and passed
series of repressive laws against Roman Catholics.
RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTION:
(1) Complete change in English foreign policy. The Anglo-
French friendship, which had existed in the main since the
reign of Elizabeth, ended. Enmity of England and France for
the next century and a quarter. Seven great wars in this period.
England entered the War of the League of Augsburg against
France.
(2) The question of supremacy between Crown and Parliament
was settled in favour of Parliament. Future kings could not
claim Divine Right.
(3) Parliament henceforth an essential and permanent part of
the machinery of government. Regular meeting assured by
granting money annually and passing Mutiny Act annually.
(4) Religious toleration established. Not yet complete, but the
State no longer attempted to enforce uniformity of religion.
(5) Scotland followed English lead, and the way was prepared
for a union of the two countries on equal terms.
(6) Ireland opposed the Revolution, was conquered, and
remained in a subordinate position.
42 . THE WAR OF THE LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG
THE LEAGUE OF AUGSBURG:
Emperor \
Spain
Holland against France.
Brandenburg
England
CAUSES OF THE WAR:
Anger and alarm of European powers at the aggressions of
Louis XIV.
Louis' determination to replace James II on the English throne.
FRENCH ADVANTAGES:
Large population. Army large, well equipped, and undefeated.
Navy built during Louis’ reign.
ADVANTAGES OF THE LEAGUE:
The alliance of the maritime powers, England and Holland.
340
SUMMARY
1690.
1692.
1693.
1694-
1690.
1692.
1692.
1693-
1695.
1697.
Luxemburg and Vauban
events of the war:
Naval :
Battle of Beachy Head. French defeated English and Dutch.
Preparations for invasion of England. William’s throne in
danger. _ , ^
Battle of La Hogue. English victory over French. Danger
of invasion past.
Loss of Smyrna fleet.
English attack on Toulon. Failed.
Land :
Mostly in the Spanish Netherlands.
against William.
Battle of Fleurus. French victory.
Namur captured by French.
Battle of Steinkirk. Luxemburg defeated WUliam.
Battle of Landen. Luxemburg defeated William. William
acted skilfully in withdrawing in good order.
W illiam recaptured Namur. Enhanced his military reputatio .
treaty of ryswick: .
(1) Louis to restore all conquests made on the continent sin
(2/ Lou^o recog^e WUliam as King of ]| Great B ”^ 1 'p eaC e in
43. THE RULE OF WILLIAM III
his difficulties:
(1) Foreign and unpopular.
(2) Poor health. , -
(a) Activity of the Jacobites (supporters of James).
(4) Untrustworthiness of his ministers, many of who
time to time in communication with James.
(5) The war with France.
T *^y oTSdergy of the Church of England ref^ed
?e a moved° g a^ m 4 eh placef were mied. They continued the
line of seceding clergy by fresh ordinations.
1696. jacobite plot: Tnhn Fenwick put to
To assassinate William. Discovered. Sir John henwic* p
death. Bond of Association formed.
ministries :
by Whigs.
I
THE STUART PERIOD
341
1696-
1700.
1700-2
1702.
1692.
1693-
1694.
1695.
1701.
1700.
Whig :
(The Junto.) The first ministry of one party. William
confided in his Dutch followers more than in his ministers.
Tory majority in Parliament. William reluctantly dismissed
Junto and appointed Tory ministers.
. Tory:
Passed the Act of Settlement and the Act for the Attainder of
the " Pretender” through a Tory Parliament.
Whig :
New Parliament elected shortly before King's death. He
dismissed some Tory ministers and reappointed Whigs.
Constitutional principles :
Established in this reign.
(1) Ministers must be of one party.
(2) Ministers must be of the party which possesses a majority
in the House of Commons.
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES:
Arising out of the war. Montagu raised money in various new
ways.
(1) Land tax of four shillings in the pound.
(2) Beginning of the National Debt.
(3) Establishment of the Bank of England. Managed new loans.
(4) New coinage, with milled edges to the coins. Beneficial
effect on trade.
act of settle:
MU
nt:
Passed because of the failure of the succession arranged in the
Bill of Rights (death of the Duke of Gloucester).
The Succession :
(1) After Anne’s death, crown to pass to Sophia of Hanover,
granddaughter of James I, and her descendants, being
Protestant.
(2) No Papist or person married to a Papist to succeed to throne.
(3) Sovereign to be in communion with Church of England.
Judges :
Not to be dismissed except for misconduct.
Other clauses :
(1) King not to leave England without consent of Parliament.
(2) Matters of State to be settled in full Privy Council.
(3) No pensioner or placeman to sit in the House of Commons.
(4) Aliens not to have grants of land, nor to be members of
Parliament or of the Privy Council, nor to hold any place of
Comment on the Act of Settlement :
(1) Protestant succession maintained. Act badly drawn up.
(2) Independence of the judges established.
(3) Remaining daises intended as insults to William.
Repealed or modified after his death.
(4) Act passed by a Tory Parliament. Tories had accepted
Revolution settlement. F
M2
342
SUMMARY
44. THE SPANISH SUCCESSION
CAUSES OF THE DECLINE OF SPAIN:
1 572 ~ (i) The strain of numerous wars.
1659. (2) No internal development.
(3) Privileges of nobles and clergy.
(4) Charles II, King of Spain, was weak in mind and body.
No children.
SPANISH dominions:
In Europe.
Spain.
Naples.
Milan.
Tuscan ports.
Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles.
Spanish Netherlands.
Certain Rhenish territories in the Empire.
In Africa.
Some possessions on the north coast.
In America.
Mexico.
Central America.
Most of West Indies.
Most of South America.
In Asia.
Philippine Islands.
CLAIMANTS TO THE SPANISH THRONE:
P/l Gr P ands U on of LouS X IV. The best genealogical
was invalidated by the renunciations of his grandmother,
Maria Theresa, and his great-grandmother, Anne ° f
His succession to Spain would endanger the balance of po
by making France too powerful.
'‘second son of* Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor ^ Archduta
by remJnciations? n ^His
the balance of power by making Austria too powerfu .
^Electoral Prince of Bavaria. Cla ^ a ^ eCte ^ y s uc?Sn J °to
made by his mother, Maria Antona. His sue
Spain would not affect the balance of power, ^ ash
child he might be brought up in Spam as a Spamar
PARTITION TREATIES:
Made by Louis XIV and William III in
question, if possible, without war.
order to settle the
343
THE STUART PERIOD
1698. First Partition Treaty : . , . _ . .
Joseph Ferdinand. To be King of Spain with the Spanish
Netherlands and the New World
possessions.
Philip. To have Naples.
Charles. To have Milan.
King and people of Spain angry. Charles II made a will leaving
to Joseph Ferdinand all the Spanish dominions.
1699. Joseph Ferdinand died.
1700. Second Partition Treaty :
Charles. To be King of Spain, with the Spanish
Netherlands and the New World
possessions.
Philip. To have Naples and Lorraine.
Duke of Lorraine. To receive Milan in exchange for Lorraine.
1700. Charles II made a will leaving to Philip all Spanish dominions.
If he did not accept, all were to be offered to Charles.
1700. DEATH OF CHARLES II OF SPAIN:
After some hesitation Louis XIV disregarded Tthe Partition
Treaty he had made and recognised Philip, Duke of Anjou,
as King of Spain with the title of Philip V.
CAUSES OF THE WAR:
(1) Louis’ disregard of the Partition Treaty and the consequent
effect on the balance of power.
1701. (2) Louis' recognition of the son of James II as King of England,
in disregard of the Treaty of Ryswick.
(3) The desire of English merchants to participate in trade with
Spanish colonies.
(4) English need for a naval base in the Mediterranean, to protect
Levantine trade from the Spanish and the Corsairs.
Spain.
Bavaria.
Cologne.
1702- WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION:
Alliances:
England t
Holland t -
Emperor 1 ' France ‘
Brandenburg f against
Hanover
Savoy
Portugal
Advantages :
French:
(1) Large undefeated army.
(2) Large population and resources.
(3) No longer without allies.
(4) Internal lines of communication.
(5) Undivided command.
Allies:
(1) Naval strength.
(2) Genius of Marlborough and Eugene.
344
1702.
1703.
1704.
1705.
1706.
1707.
1708.
1709.
1706
1704.
1706.
1707-
1708.
1710.
1706.
1708.
1709.
1712.
1710.
1711.
1713-
Again
Heavy
SUMMARY
Events in the Netherlands and Central Europe :
Marlborough on the Dutch frontier.
Marlborough moved up the Rhine and captured Bonn.
Cologne made peace. . . . .
Louis planned attack on Vienna, in conjunction with Elector
of Bavaria. Marlborough made rapid march across
Germany, joined Eugene and defeated French at Battle of
Blenheim. Emperor saved. Bavaria made peace.
Marlborough again on Dutch frontier.
Marlborough defeated French at Battle of Ramillies.
Conquered large part of Spanish Netherlands.
French recovered part of the lost territory.
Marlborough defeated French at Battle of Oudenarde.
conquered part of Spanish Netherlands.
Marlborough defeated French at Battle of Malplaquet.
losses. Way open into France.
£ Ba'tl'j 1 of a Tu'rm. Eugene defeated French, who. were driven
out of Italy. Milan and Naples became Austrian.
^^Archduke Charles made Barcelona his headquarters. Catalonia
loyal to him. Rest of Spain for Philip.
English captured Gibraltar.
Charles marched to Madrid, but withdrew.
Allies defeated at Almanza.
gg£ ^r"T M adrid. Again withdrew. Allies
again defeated.
Negotiations for peace : . . A c . „
basis * second
A "d^nard?- Lou “offered ,0 withdraw recognition of
Philip V. Whigs demanded that Louis should join
SP ^ Offered ,0 assist allies with money,
but not to join the alliance. Rejected.
At Utrecht. Led to peace.
Circumstances leading to peace :
(1) Fall of the Whigs in England.
(2) Archduke Charles became Emperor.
PEACE OF UTRECHT t
M Philip V recognised as King of Spain.
g Tuscan
( 4 rB^ri“ d fo S r P ^es^n«her,ands ,0 he garrisoned by
i P r^u ke * 3 ° 5 a voy to receive Sicily and be King.
§ Elector of Brandenburg to be King of Prussia.
THE STUART PERIOD 345
(7) Great Britain to retain Gibraltar, Minorca, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay territory.
(8) Louis to recognise Anne as Queen of Great Britain.
(9) Pretender to be expelled from France.
(10) Fortifications of Dunkirk to be dismantled.
(11) Great Britain to receive monopoly of supply of negro slaves
to Spanish colonies for thirty years.
(12) Great Britain to be allowed to send one ship per annum to
Porto Bello for general trade.
COMMENTS ON THE PEACE:
(1) Spain received the King she desired.
(2) Balance of power maintained.
(3) In accordance with existing facts.
(4) Defence of Holland against French attack provided for by
the establishment of the Austrian Netherlands as a buffer
state and by the establishment of the Barrier fortresses.
(5) Austrian power established in Italy.
(6) Protestant succession in England safeguarded. Blow to
Jacobite hopes.
(7) English naval station in the Mediterranean.
(8) Beginning of open British trade with Spanish colonies.
(9) Catalans not protected from the vengeance of Philip.
(10) New European monarchies recognised.
(11) Failure of the schemes of Louis XIV.
45. ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH
CENTURY
JAMES 1:
Personal union established. King desired closer union.
Proposals rejected. Mutual dislike and suspicion.
King assumed title of “ King of Great Britain."
1610. King established bishops in Scottish Church.
CHARLES 1:
1633. Visited Scotland.
(1) Increased number and power of Scottish bishops.
(2) Ordered clergy to wear surplices.
(3) Ordered use of Prayer Book.
1638. General Assembly of the Scottish Church, at Glasgow.
(1) Abolished bishops.
(2) Abolished Prayer Book.
Covenant established.
Committees appointed to control Scottish affairs.
1639. First Bishops’ War. No fighting.
1640. General Assembly at Edinburgh. Confirmed proceedings of
first Assembly.
1640. Second Bishops' War. King defeated.
1641. King visited Scotland. Religious affairs settled. Church
Presbyterian. Government in hands of Argyll.
346 SUMMARY
1643. Solemn League and Covenant. Treaty between Scots and
Parliament. Scots to fight for the English Puritans against the
King in return for the introduction of Presbyteri an i sm in
England.
1644-6. Scottish army in England. King surrendered to Scots, who
delivered him up to Parliament.
1647. The Engagement. Treaty between King and Scots. Scots to
restore Charles to English throne in return for the establish-
ment of Presbyterianism for three years.
1648. Second Civil War. Scots invaded England but were defeated
by Cromwell in Lancashire.
COMMONWEALTH :
Montrose rose against Argyll's Government on behalf of
Charles II. Failed. Put to death. .
Charles II accepted Covenant. Recognised as King by Scots.
Crowned at Scone. ,
1650. Cromwell invaded Scotland. Defeated Leslie at Dunbar.
Followed Charles into England, where he defeated him at
Worcester.
Argyll's Government overthrown. Monk governor.
Scotland united to England- Humiliating to Scots, but
(1) No religious persecution followed.
(2) Scots shared in the benefits of English trade.
CHARLES II AND JAMES II S
Union with England ended. Persecution of Covenanters earned
on. Scots lost trade benefits.
1689. revolution: .
Scots followed English lead and accepted William and 1 Mary
as joint King and Queen. Secured Presbyterian Church
government, but failed to settle the trade question.
1695-9. D ARSEN SCHEME: . f
An effort to establish a trading settlement independent . or
England. Proposed colonies on Isthmus of Darien, in order
to build up trade with India across Atlantic and Pacihc.
Causes of failure:
(1) Climatic difficulties.
(2) No adequate survey. Great natural obstacles.
Failurfof’fh’esS^'led to much loss among s “?J h f ° e £g
invested their savings in the Darien Company. Bitter 8
against England.
events leading to the union:
1701. Scots did not follow English example in the matter
succession. .
sSnS ofSecurity. ^En^h succeyor of Quean Anne
not to succeed in Scotland except on condition of fre
THE STUART PERIOD 347
between England and Scotland, Scotland receiving the benefit
of the Navigation Acts, and Scotland controlling her own
affairs. Anne vetoed Bill.
1704. Act of Security again passed in Scottish Parliament. Anne con-
sented, in order to avoid a war between the two countries
while the war with France was in an uncertain position.
1705. (After Blenheim). English prepared for war with Scotland.
Scots alarmed.
1706. Negotiations for union. Succeeded.
1707. act of union:
(1) One kingdom (Great Britain), with one sovereign, one army,
one flag, one Parliament, but with separate laws, law-courts,
and Churches.
(2) Succession as in English Act of Settlement.
(3) Sixteen Scottish peers in the House of Lords and forty-five
members in the House of Commons.
(4) Free trade between England and Scotland.
(5) England to provide £400,000 to pay off Scottish national
debt and to compensate those who had lost money in the
Darien scheme.
UNPOPULARITY OF THE UNION:
Accepted by Scots and English as the alternative to war.
Scots regarded their national glory as lost.
Scots feared for the Presbyterian Church.
Jacobites lost hope of a Stuart restoration in Scotland.
English people disliked Scots.
RESULTS OF THE UNION:
(1) Benefit to both countries.
(2) Scottish national characteristics have been maintained.
(3) British success in the struggle with France for colonial empire.
(4) Industrial development of the Clyde valley.
(5) A blow to Jacobite hopes.
46. IRELAND IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
JAMES 1:
1610. Plantation of Ulster :
1607. Hugh O'Neill revolted. Suppressed. Lands confiscated.
English and Scottish settlers given Ulster lands. Ulster
became most prosperous and least Irish part of the country.
Dispossessed Irish retreated to Connaught.
CHARLES 1:
1633-40. Wentworth:
Lord Deputy. Stern rule. Order and peace. Industry
encouraged. Church reforms. Army raised. Proposed
Plantation of Connaught not carried out.
SUMMARY
348
1641
1649.
1661.
1665.
Rebellion :
After Wentworth’s departure. Massacre of Protestants.
Several years' fighting. Roman Catholic worship restored.
COMMONWEALTH :
Cromwell :
Overcame Ormond’s attempt to establish Charles II. Capture
of Drogheda and Wexford. Massacre of garrisons. Puritans
settled on Irish lands. Ireton governor. Stem rule.
CHARLES 11 :
Ormond :
Lord Lieutenant. Act of Settlement, confirming Puriun
settlers in possession of their lands and offering Royalists
equivalent lands. Act of Explanation, reducing Crom-
wellian grants. Roman Catholic worship tolerated.
JAMES 11 :
Tyrconell :
Lord Lieutenant. Roman Catholic,
the English connection.
Aimed at severance of
1689. revolution:
James attempted to recover Ireland. Protestant resistance at
Derry and Enniskillen. James defeated at the Battle of the
1690. Boyne. Conquest of Ireland completed by Ginkel and
Churchill.
1695. Penal code of laws against Roman Catholics.
47. PARTY STRUGGLES IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE
THE queen:
Daughter of James II. Weak character. Influenced by
favourites. Supported Church and Tory party. ^ Dismissed
Whig ministers who took office just before William's death.
1702- MARLBOROUGH MINISTRY:
1710. Marlborough, Captain-General.
Godolphin, Lord High Treasurer. Tories.
1702-4-
1703.
Ministry Tory:
Tories less eager than the Whigs to carry on the war.
Marlborough not sure of his position till after Blenheim.
Marlborough supported at court by his wife, who was tne
Queen’s favourite. .
Occasional Conformity Bill. To prevent Dissenters fro
aualifying for membership of corporations by Occasional
Conformity.” Tories supported Bill. Whigs opposed 1 -
Bill defeated.
1704—6. Ministry moderate Tory :
After extreme Tories had left it.
THE STUART PERIOD 349
1706-8. Ministry mixed: .
Some Whigs admitted to office. Whig party in House of
Commons strengthened by accession of Scottish members.
1708-10. Ministry Whig: , , , Y7 , . -- ,
Remaining Tories resigned. Ministry entirely Whig. Marl-
borough and Godolphin now regarded as Whig.
Causes of fall of Marlborough Ministry:
(1) Prolongation of war.
(2) Marlborough's loss of popularity. "A second Cromwell.’
(3) Impeachment of Dr. Sacheverell.
(4) Quarrel of Queen and Duchess.
1710- TORY ministry:
17x4- Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, Lord High Treasurer.
Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, Secretary of State.
Abigail Hill, Harley's cousin, was Queen's favourite.
Aims:
(1) To end the war.
(2) To bring about the succession of the Pretender.
17x3. War;
Ended by Peace of Utrecht.
Sanctioned by House of Commons (Tory majority) without
difficulty.
Sanctioned by House of Lords (Whig majority) only after
creation of twelve Tory peers.
Succession :
Real objection to Pretender's succession was his religion, which
he was unwilling to change.
Tory preparations for Pretender's succession:
Whig regiments disbanded.
Duke of Ormond made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.
Whig preparations for Elector’s succession:
Electoral Prince of Hanover invited to come to England.
Queen Anne wrote angry letter to Sophia, who died soon
after.
Quarrel of Harley and Bolingbroke. Harley would not support
Pretender unless he would change his religion. Quarrel
of Harley and Bolingbroke in Queen’s presence. Harley
dismissed.
1714. Bolingbroke alone at head of Government. Queen taken
ill. Appointed Duke of Shrewsbury, a Whig, Lord High
Treasurer. Queen died. Shrewsbury proclaimed George L
Bolingbroke fled to France.
GENEALOGICAL TABLES
THE TUDORS
L
Arthur
Prince of
Wales.
Died 1502
HENRY VII
(1485jl509)
HENRY VIII
(1509-1547)
Margaret
m. James IV
King of Scotland
k
EDWARD VI MARY ELIZABETH
(1547-1553) (1553-1558) (1558-1603)
Mary
m. (1) Louis XII
(2) Duke of
Suffolk
Lady Jane Grey
THE STUARTS
JAMES IV
(1488-1513)
m. Margaret Tudor
JAAlts V
(1513-1542)
MARY i>TUART
(1542-1567)
jamIs VI
(King o f Scotland, 1567-1625)
(King of England, 1603-1625)
i
Henry
Prince of Wales
Died 1612
LL
chaiIles I
(1625-1649)
I
Elizabeth
m. Elector
Palatine
CHARGES II Mary
(1660-1685) m. Prince of
Orange
JAMES II
(1685-1688)
Sophia
WILLIAM III m. MARYII AN^E James
(1689-1702) (1689-1694) (1702-1714)
mJORGE I
350
GENEALOGICAL TABLES
35i
THE HAPSBURGS
FERDINAND m. ISABELLA
Kin? of Aragon Queen of
(1479-1516) , Castile
(1474-1504)
MAXIMILIAN m. Mary of Burgundy
Emperor
(1493-1519)
i
Catherine
m. Henry VIII
Joanna
m.
I
•hi 111
(CHARLES V, Emperor (1519-1556)
\ CHARLES I, King of Spain (1516-1556)
PHILIP II
(1556-1598)
philIp III
(1598yl621)
Louis XIII m. Anne of
King of France Austria
PHILIP IV
(1621-1665)
1
Mafia m . Ferdinand III
Emperor
Louis XIV
King of
France
is, il
I
m. Mana
Theresa
I ] I
CHARLES II Margaret m. Leopold I Emperor
(1665-1700) Theresa m. Eleanor of
Neuburg
Louis, Dauphin
Louis PHILIP V
Duke of (1700-1746)
Burgundy Duke of Anjou
Louis ^XV
King of France
Marla Antonia | (
m. Elector of Joseph I Charles VI
Bavaria Emperor Emperor
Joseph Ferdinand
Electoral Prince
of Bavaria
INDEX
References are to the pages of the text : no references to the summaries
are included.
Abbeys, 54-7
Abbot, George. Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 121, 149
Abbots, 54-7. 106-8
Accounts, Audit of, 235-6
Acts of Parliament:
Annates, 49-50
Appeals, 50
Army, 236
Articles, Six, 59-62
Attainder of Clarendon. 205
of Pretender, 260
of Protestants (Irish),
238-9
of Strafford, 155
Bill of Rights. 234, 250-1, 280
Bishops, 158, 194
Branding vagabonds. 67
Conventicle, 202
Corporation, 202, 281
Dissolution of larger monasteries. 56
of smaller monasteries, 55
Episcopal Ordination, 197
Exclusion (Bill). 211-13, 232
Explanation, 198, 278
Five Mile. 202
Habeas Corpus. 211
Indemnity and Oblivion, 196
Monasteries, dissolution of, 55-6
Monopolies. 132, 147
Mutiny, 236
Navigation. 1651; 1<6, 2<0
— , 1660; 193, 198, 203, 227
Occasional conformity, 281
Parliamentary test. 211
Petition of Right, 144-5, 147
Poor Law, 68
Povnings’ Law (Irish), 101
Rescissory (Scottish). 197
Right, Petition of. 144-5, 147
Rights, Bill of, 234. 250-1. 280
198. 238.
— 1!^-, 2 1701; 251-3. 264, 272. 274
Six Articles, 59-62
Supremacy, 1534; 50, o3
1559; 70
Test, 208. 217, 232
Toleration, 23b, 281
Treason, 1571; 71, 108
Triennial, 1641; 156
,1694; 248
Uniformity, 1662; 19 <, 20-
Union of England and bcotland.
273-5
Addled Parliament, 131 t
“Advertisements,” Parkers, <3
Agnadello, battle of, 24
Agriculture, colonial, 226
, English, 66
Albemarle, George Monk, Duke of,
175, 190-1, 204, 270
Alchemy, xxiii
Alencon-Anjou, Francis, Duke of, 93
Alexander III, Pope, 37
VI, Pope, 36
Alexandria, 4
Aliens, 252
Allen. William, Cardinal, 72
Almanza, battle of, 262
Almoner. Royal, Wolsey as, 31
Alva, Duke of, S3 t
Ambassador, Spanish, dismissal or,
83 94
Amboyna, massacre of, 175, 176, 225
America, discovery of, 4, 8-9
Amerigo Vespucci, 9
Amsterdam, G
Amusements, popular, prohibition or,
183
Anabaptists, 167, 183, 196
Ancient history, xxi
Andrcwes, Lancelot, Bishop of Win-
chester. 121
Angus, Earl of, 79
Anjou. Henry. Duke of (Henry III). 93
Annates, 48. 102
, Act of, 49-50
Anne Boloyn, 50, 53, 78, 9-
of Austria, 257
of Brittany. 14
of Cleves, 29. 57
, Queen of England. 185, 222, -34,
250, 260, 264, 273. 280-4
Antwerp, 7
Appeals, Act of, 50
to florae, 48-50. 10‘-
Appointments, papal, in England, 48
Apprenticeship of pauper children.
Appropriation of supplies, -3o b
Arable land, conversion of, into
pasture, 66
^-".Catherine of. 19. 23. 28. 49-50.
53. 78
Ferdinand, King of. 14, 19.
23-7, 41
Archangel, 90 „ . T ,
Argyll. Duke of ((. Charles I). 157
174, 197. 269 „
, Duke of ((. James ID. -1°
Arhngtom bC Honry 16 Bennet, Lord.
Armada! 84? 88. 91. 94. 96-9. 123
. second. 99
Arinlnians, 118-19, 1-1, 145, 1
Army Act. 236
Council, 16 1 . 180, 18- .,,4
. New Model. 162. 176, 1.8-9, 134
186-7. 189-90, 194
: Standing, 194-5. 220. 234. 236
Arrest of live members of Parliament
attempted, 158
352
INDEX
353
Arthur, Prince of Wales, 19, 23, 28, 49
Articles of war, 195
six. statute of, 59-62
Thirty-nine, 217
Artillery, importance of, 20
Ashley, Lord, Earl of Shaftesbury,
205-13
Aslento, 265
Assassination plot, 1696; 248
Assemblies, colonial, 228
Assembly, General, of the Church of
Scotland, 151-2, 157, 269
Association, Bond of, 1584; 83
, Bond of, 1696; 248
itfiSSc^SS. 4. 8, 11, 16. 87, 271
Atlantis, 8
Attainder of Clarendon, 205
of Irish Protestants, 238-9
of Pretender, 260
of Strafford, 155
Audit of accounts, 235—6
Augsburg, League of, 221-3, 240, 243
, War of the League of, 243-6,
254
Authorised version of the Bible, 119
Avignon, 38
Azores, 99
Bablngton’s plot, 83
Bacon, Francis, Lord Chancellor, 131,
140
Bad intercourse, 22
Bahamas, 8
Balance of power, 27-8, 257-8
of trade, 129
Balboa, 9
Balearic Isles, 256
Balkan peninsula, 12
Ballard, Father, 83
Baltic, 228
Baltimore, Lord, 226
Bancroft, Richard, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 121
Bank of England. 249
Baptiste, 167, 183, 196
Barbados, 226
Barbary Corsairs, 260
Barcelona, 262. 265
Barebones Parliament, 180
Barking, last abbess of, 56
Baronage, reduction of power of, by
Henry VII, 20
Baronet, creation of title of, 130
Barrier fortresses, 264
Basel, 41
Bate, John, 129
Bath, Bishop of, Wolsey as, 31
Battles :
Agnadello, 24
Almanza, 262
Beachy Head, 243
Blenheim, 261-2, 273, 280
Bosworth, 17
Boyno, 239, 278
Carberry Hill, 79, 82
Chalgrove Field, 161
dTuTy
Dogger Bonk, 207
Dunbar, 174, 187, 270
B a ttlee — co nlin ued
Dunes, 186
Edgehill, 160
Floums, 244
Flodden, 26, 76
Gravelines, 99
Guinegatto. 20. 75
Killiecrankio, 237
La Hogue, 244, 246
Landen, 244
Langsido, 80
Lowestoft, 204
Maidstone, 168
Malplaquet, 262-3
Marignano, 26-7
Mareton Moor, 162
Naseby, 164
Neerwinden. 244
Newburn, 152
Newton Butler, 239
Oudenarde, 262
Pavia. 28
Philiplmugh, 1G4
Pinkie, 76
Preston, 168
Ramillles, 202
Ravenna, 26
St. Quentin, 30
Sedgemoor, 216
Solway Moss, 76
Southwold Bay, 207
Spurs, 26, 75
Steinkirk, 244
Stoke, 18
Texel, 176
Turin, 262
Warrington, 168
White Hill, 138
Wigan, 168
Worcester, 175, 187, 270
Bavaria, Josoph Ferdinand, Electoral
Prince of, 257-8
, Maximilian Emanuel,
Elector of, 257, 260, 261
Beachy Head, battlo of, 243
Beaton, David, Archbishop of St.
Andrews, and Cardinal, 77
Beatty, Sir David, 207
Beaulieu Abbey, 18
Beggars, 66-7
Belgium. See Netherlands, Spanish
Benevolences, 21
Berwick, pacification of, 152
Bible, chained, 59
, translation of, into English,
1540* 59
, Into English, 1611; 119
. into German, 41
Billeting, 143-4
BUI of Rights, 234, 250-1, 2S0
Bishoprics held by Wolsoy, 31
, new, established by
Henry VIII, 57
Bishops Act, 158, 194
Bishops in Scotland, 150-2, 197. 237,
268-74
— of the pro-Reformation
Church, 86
Bishops, trial of the seven, 219
war, first, 151-2
war, second, 152, 269
INDEX
354
“ Black Bartholomew/’ 197
Blackfriars, 34
Blackheath, 194
Black Pope, 45
Rent, 100
Sea, 6
Blake, Robert, 171, 176, 186
Blenheim, battle of, 261-2, 273, 280
Bloody Assize, 216
Blount, Charles, Lord Mountjoy, 104
Bohemia, 137
, Elector (King) of, 13, 137
Boleyn, Anne, 50, 53, 78, 92
BoLingbroke, Henry St. John, Vis-
count, 282-4
Bologna, xxiii
Bombay, 203, 224
Bond of Association, 1584; 83
. 1696; 248
Bonn, 261
Bonner, Edmund, Bishop of London,
62—3
Book of Common Prayer, 61, 62, 70,
115, 149, 183. 197
, Scottish, 150-2, 197, 269
Book of Rates, 130
Books, writing of, in monasteries, 54
Bosworth, battle of, 17
Both well, James Hepburn, Earl of, 79
Boulogne, 30
Bourbons, the, 95. 135-6
Boyne, battle of the, 239, 278
Bradshaw, John, 169
Brandenburg, 13, 220. 243, 261, 264
Branding of vagabonds, 67
Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk, 26
” Bray, vicar of,” 219
Brazil. 7, 10, 224
Breda, declaration of, 190-1, 196, 202
, Treaty of, 204
Brenner Pass, 6
Brentford, Charles I at, 160
Bribery of judges, 131
of members of Parliament,
199, 208
Bristol, 10, 85
British Constitution, 250
Brittany, Anne, Duchess of, 14
Brixham, 222
Brown, Robert, 73
Brownists, 73
Bruce, Robert, 270
Bruges. 6
Brussels. 256
Buckingham, George \ llliers, 1st
Duke of, 138. 140, 142-5, 155
, 2nd Duke of, 205-6
Bulford, 172
Bunyan. John, 202, 207
Burgundy. 13-14
, Charles the Rash, Duke of,
— — — , Louis. Duke of, 257
, Margaret of York, Duchess of,
14,18,19,22 , „ 14
, Mary, Duchess of, 13, 14,
18 27
Burleigh, Sir William Cecil, Lord,
140 . ^
Butler, Janies, Duke of Ormond
{(. Anne), 263, 283
Butler, James, Duke of Ormond
(t. Charles I and Charles II), 172,
277-8
Butlers, the. 101
Cabal, the. 205-8
Cabot, John, 10, 85
, Sebastian, 10
Cabral. 7, 10
Cadiz expedition, 1587; 96
1596; 99
, 1625; 142
Calais. 22, 30. 65, 98, 184-5
Calcutta, 224
Calicut, 7
California, 88
Calvin, John. 41-2
Calvinism, 41-2, 118
, spread of, 42
Calvinists, 42, 73
Cambray, League of, 24
Cambridge. 217
Campbell clan, 237
Campeggio, Cardinal, 34
Canterbury, Archbishops of:
Abbot, George, 121, 149
Bancroft, Richard, 121
Cranmer, Thomas, 50, 53, 58, 61,
63, 64
Grindal, Edmund, 74
Juxou, William, 170, 196
Laud, William, 121, 149-50, 154,
162, 196, 268
Morton, John, Cardinal, 21
Parker. Matthew, 73-4
Pole, Reginald. Cardinal, 63, 6 j, 73
Sancroft, William, 215, 319, 247
Sheldon, Gilbert, 196
Tillotson, John, 247-8
Whitgift, John, 74, 121
Canton, 9
Cape Horn. 90, 228
Capo of Good Hope, 7,9, 88, 90, --o, --8
Cape route to India, 7-8
Cape Verde Islands, 10
Captivity of Charles I, 166-70
Carberry Hill, battle of, 79, 8-
Cardinal College. Oxford, 32
Cardinals:
Alien, William, 72
Beaton, David, 77
Campeggio, 34
Fisher, John, 53
Mazarin. 184
Morton, John, 21
Pole, Reginald, 63, 65, 73
Porto Carrero, 259
Richelieu. 143-4, 201
Wolsey, Thomas, 26-8, 31-4, j 3, 107
Carisbrooko Castle, 167-9
Carlisle, 81
Carolina^, the, 226 4A
Carr, Robert. Earl of Somerset, 140
Cartwright, Thomas, 74
Casket Letters, 82
Caspian Sea, 90
Castile, 8. 14, 27 xuddle
Castles, importance of, in the Middle
Ages, 20
Catalonia, 262, 265
INDEX
355
Cateaby, Robert, 120
Cathedrals of new bishoprics, 57
Catherine of Aragon, 19, 23, 28, 49-50,
53, 78
Braganza, 203
Catholic Church, xxil. 35, 43, 51
Catholics, Roman, 71—2, 81-4, 102,
115, 117-18, 120-1, 128, 181-2,
205-11, 215-23. 226, 251, 277-9
Cavalier Parliament, 193-9, 202-11
Cavaliers, 161-5, 193-9, 202
Cecil, Sir Edward, Lord Wimbledon,
142
. Sir Robert, Earl of Salisbury,
140
. Sir William, Lord Burleigh,
140
Cessation, the, 162, 277
Chained Bible. 59
Chalgrovo Field, battle of, 161
Chancellor, Richard, 90
Chancellors, Lord :
Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulain,
131, 140
Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of,
190-1, 195, 197, 202-5
More, Sir Thomas, 53
Somers, John, Lord, 249
Wolsey, Thomas, Archbishop of
York. 31
Channel Rovers, 86-7, 93, 94, 96
Chantries. 60
, dissolution of, 60
Charles I, King of Great Britain, 122,
126, 137-8. 140, 141-70, 171, 175,
176, 183, 191, 194, 195, 197, 206,
221, 224, 226, 228, 268-9, 277
II, King of Great Britain, 19,
169-70, 176, 190-1, 193-214,215-16,
219, 232. 239, 264, 269-70, 277-8
the Great, Holy Roman
Emperor, 12
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
and King of Spain, 27-30, 33-4, 41,
57, 64
VI, Holy Roman Emperor
(Archduke Charles), 257-66, 232
VIII, King of France, 22
IX, King of France, 226
II, King of Spain, 221, 254-9
the Rash, Duke of Burgundy,
14
Charlestown, 226
Charters, forfeiture of, by towns, 214
, new, granted to towns, 215
, sale of, 125
Chatham, 204
Chichester, Sir Arthur, 104, 276
China, 4
Christ Church College, Oxford, 32
Christchurch, last prior of, 57
Christian IV, King of Denmark, 138
Christiania, 6
Christianity, spread of throughout the
Roman Empire, 35
Church collections for the poor, 68
corruption, 35-8
— disunion since the Reforma-
tion. 35, 40, 43, 46
doctrine, 36 '
■ , Eastern, 35, 37, 40
Churchill, John, Duke of Marl-
borough, 239. 260-3. 273. 280-1
. Sarah. Duchess of Marl-
borough, 280, 282
Church of England, 29, 32, 35, 38,
47-52. 58-65. 69-74. 107, 115,
117-21. 149-50, 157. 160. 162, 170,
183, 196-7, 200, 208, 215. 217-18,
222, 226, 237, 241, 247-8, 251,
268, 280, 283
of Geneva, 42
of Ireland. 102, 105, 198,
276-8
of Rome, 29, 35, 46. 64, 184,
200, 214. 254
of Scotland. 73, 77-8, 118,
150-2, 157, 174-5, 197, 237, 268-74
Orthodox, 35, 37, 40
power of, 20
privileges of. 18
wealth of, 37
Western. 35
Cinque ports, Lord Warden of the,
263
Circumnavigation of the world, 9, 88
Civil list. 235
Civil war in England, 160-5
England, second, 168-72
France, 93-5
Claim of Right, 237
Clans, Highland. 237-8, 271
Clarence, George, Duke of. 17
Clarendon code, 202, 218, 236
Clarendon. Edward Hyde, Earl of,
190-1. 195, 197, 202-5
Classical learning In the Middle Ages,
xiv
Clavorhousc, James Graham of, Vis-
count Dundee, 237
Clement VII, Pope, 28
Clergy, education of the. 32
, Uvea of the, 32, 35, 49
Clcvcs, Anno of, 29. 57
, Duke of, 29
Clifford, Thomas, Lord, 205-6, 208
Cloth Industry In the Netherlands
22 , 68
Clyde vaUcy, 275
Coast defence, 85
Coinage, milled edges on, 249
Coke, Sir Edward, Lord Chief Justice,
140
Colbert, 243
Colchester, last Abbot of, 56
, slcgo of, 168
Colet, John, Dean of St. Paul's, 49
Collections in churches for the poor, 68
Cologne, Elector (Archbishop) of, 13,
260-1
Colonial empire, Spanish, 10, 27, 256
products, enumeration of, 227
Colonies, English, 225-8
, principles of, 88-90, 227
Colonisation, principles of, 88-90, 227
Columbus, Christopher, 4, 8-9, 14
Commission to investigate Mary
Stuart’s conduct, 82
Common Pleas, Court of, 251
Common Prayer, Book of, 61, 62, 70
115, 149. 183, 197
, Scottish. 150-2, 197, 269
35 6
INDEX
Commons, House of, 106-9, 120, 122,
131-2, 155-9. 187, 208, 212, 213,
232-3, 249-50, 260, 274, 282
Commonwealth, the, 171-92
Communication, interior lines of. 260
Companies, trading, 147, 224-5,
228-30
Compass, mariner’s, invention of, xxiv
Comprehension, 236
Cond6, 206, 244, 261
Conference, Hampton Court, 119
, Savoy, 196
Conformity, occasional, 281
Congregation, Lords of the, 77
Connaught. 276
, plantation of, suggested, 277
Constance, council of, 38
Constantinople, 4, 6
, capture of, by Turks, xxiii, 12
, Patriarch of, 35
Constitutional principles, 250
Contract, Great, 130
Conventicle Act, 202
Convention. 1660; 190-1, 193, 195
, 1689; 232-6, 248
Conventions, constitutional. 250
Convention, Scottish, 237, 271
Conversion of the English, 47
Convicts, transportation of, 226
Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Earl of
Shaftesbury. 205-13
Corporation Act, 202, 281
Corruption of the Church, 35-7, 43
Corsairs, the, 260
Corunna, 99
Council, Great, in Anglo-Saxon times,
47
in Tudor times, 32, 58-60
of army oilicers, 167, 180, 182
of Constance, 38
of Peers, 152
of Regency, 60-1
of State (Protectorate), 181
of State (Rump), 171, 178, 179
of the North, 57. 149-50, 156
of Trent, 43-4, 46
, Privy, 252
Councils, General, 38
Counter-Reformation. 43-6, 240
Counties, representation of, in Parlia-
ment, 106
County courts, proposal to establish,
180
Court of Archbishop of Canterbury, 50
Common Pleas, 251
Ecclesiastical Commission, 218,
9 *) O34
“■—Exchequer. 130. 251
Exchequer Chamber, 148
High Commission, 150, 156
Justice, High, 169
King's Bench, 251
Star* Chain her, 20, 21, 32, 150,
156 , _
Court party in House of Commons,
157 f _
Courts, ecclesiastical, 48
martial, 143-4
, shire, 20
Covenanters, 198, 237, 270
Covenant, National, 151, 174
, Solemn League and, 162, 269
Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 50, 53, 58. 61, 63, 64
Cromwell, Oliver, 161-4, 167-8, 172-5
178-39, 195, 269-70, 277
, Richard, 189
, Thomas, 29, 53-7, 58
Crown lands, 124, 148, 196
Cuba, 8
Custom of the Constitution, 250
Dalrymple, Sir John, 238
Danby, Sir Thomas Osborne, Earl of,
208-11
Darien, Isthmus of, 9, 87-8, 271
scheme, 271, 274
Darnley, Henry Stuart, Lord, 78-80,
82, 84
Dauphin of France (son of Louis XIV),
256
Davi9, John, 90
Declaration of Breda, 190-1, 196,
202
Indulgence, 1672; 207-8, 219
Indulgence, 1687 (1st), 218
Indulgence, 1687 (2nd), 219,
222
Right, 234
Defence of the Seven Sacraments, 49
Defender of the Faith, 49
Demarcation, line of, 10
Denmark, 42, 138
Deposition of Elizabeth, 71, 83, 96
James II. 233, 237 t u
kings, right of, claimed by
popes. 37
Mary Stuart, 79
Deputies, Lord, of Ireland:
Chichester, Sir Arthur. 104, 276
Ireton, Henry, 172, 195, 277
Kildare, eighth Earl of, 101
, ninth Earl of, 101
Ludlow, Edmund, 277
Ormond, Duke of (Lord Lieutenant),
172, 277-8
Poynings, Sir Edward, 101
Sidney, Sir Henry, 104
Skefllngton, Sir \\Illiam, 101
Sussex, Earl of, 102
Tyrconell. Earl of (Lord Lieutenant),
238,278-9 .
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, 149, 154,
276-8 , _ _
Deputy, Lord, of Ireland, 100
Derry, siege of, 239
De Uuyter, 207
Desmond, Earl of, 101, 104
revolt, 104-5
Devolution, war of, 205, 254
Devon revolt, 61
Do Witts, the, 206
Diaz, Bartholomew, 7 . n
Diet of the Holy Roman Lmpire. w
Diplomacy of James I, 134, 136 o
Direct taxation. 129
Dismissal of Judges, 251-2
Dispensation for the marrlago
Henry VIII to Catherine) or
Aragon, 23, 28, 33
INDEX
357
Dispensing power, 217-18, 222,234,236
Dissenters. 207, 213, 218-19. 280-2
Dissolution of chantries, 60
English monasteries, 55-60, 70
gilds, 60
Irish monasteries, 102
Diu, battle of, 7
Divine Right of Kings, 113-16, 201,
232-3, 240. 247, 282
Divorce of Ilcnry VIII from Anno of
Cloves, 29
Catherine of Aragon, 28,
33-4, 50, 53, 64
Doctrines of the Church. 36
Dogger Bank, battle of tho, 207
Dortslaus, Dr., 176
Dorset, Henry Grey, Marquis of, 25
Douai, college at. 72
priests, 72. 83-4
Dover, landing of Charles II at, 191
, Treaty of. 206
Drako, Sir Francis, 87-90, 94, 96-9
Drogheda, 101, 172
, Statute of, 101
Dublin. 100, 238-9
Dudley, Edmund. 53
, John, Earl of Warwick and
Duke of Northumberland, 61-2, 77
, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 94
Dunbar, battle of, 174, 187, 270
Dundalk, 100
Dundee, James Graham of Claver-
house, Viscount, 237
Dunes, battle of the, 186
Dunkirk, 185-6, 193. 194, 203, 264
•’ Dunkirk House,” 203
Dunstable, 50
Durham. 82
-, Bishop of, Wolsey as, 31
Dutch East India Company, 175, 225
friends of William 111,249,252
guards, 249-50
navy. 176. 204, 207, 243
, the, 85, 93-5. 119, 134-5, 171,
175-6, 203-4, 220-1, 243-6, 249,
261-2, 264
war, 1652-4; 176
war. 1664-7; 203-4
war, 1672-4; 20G-S
Eastern Church, 35, 37. 40
Roman Empire. 12
East India Company, Dutch, 175, 22!
, English, 175, 203, 224-5, 228
-, French, 225
East Indies, 9, 224-5
Ecclesiastical Commission, Court of
218. 222, 234
courts. 48
EdgehIU, battle of, 160
Edict of Nantes, 95, 220
Edinburgh, 77, 119, 152, 237, 269
— , Treaty of, 78
Education in the Middle Ages, xiv
of tho clergy, 32
Edward I. 75, 106
Ill, 17. 96, 106, 148
IV, 17, 18, 22
V, 18, 19
VI. 60-3, 65, 67. 70, 94
Effingham, Charles, Lord Howard of,
98-9 , „
Egyptian route to India, G
Electoral Prince, an. 257
Elector Palatine, Frederick, 131,
136-8. 147. 164. 175. 251
Electors of the English Parliament,
106
of the Holy Roman Empire, 13
Eliot. Sir John, 143, 146
Elixir of life, xxill
Elizabeth, daughter of James I, 120,
136,251 „ oD
, Queen, 30, 42, 46, 53, 68,
69-74, 75, 77-8, 80, 92-5, 99,
102-5, 108-9, 117, 119, 122-3. 128.
134, 140, 150, 186, 224-5, 240. 276
excommunication of, 71. 83,
108, 134
. foreign policy of. 92-5
, religious sett!
cinent of. 69-74
Emperor, Holy Roman, 12, 15, 115-16
Empire, Eastern Roman, 12
, Holy Roman, 12, 15, 29,
39-42.44. 46. 135-8. 179-80, 20-1,
220-1, 243, 246. 256, 261-7
, Roman, 12. 35
, Spanish colonial, 10, 27, 256
, Turkish, 12
. Western Roman, 12
Empson, Richard, 53
Encroachments on Crown lands. 148
Engagement, the, 168, 170. 172, 269
Engllshry, 100-1
English succession, war of the, 243-6
Enniskillen, siege of, 239
Enumeration or colonial products. 227
Episcopal Ordination Act, 197
Essex, Robert Devereux, Earl of
(f. Charles I), 160
. Robert Devereux, Earl of
(f. Elizabeth), 99. 104
Staples, Treat y of. 22
Eugene, Prince, 261-2
Exchequer Chamber, Court of, 1 4 S
. Court of. 130, 251
Excise, 194
Exclusion Bill. 211-13, 232
Excommunication of Elizabeth, 71,
83, 108, 134
Luther, 40-1
Execution of Charles I, 169
Exeter, 222
Explanation, Act of (Irish), 198. 278
Exploration by English. 10. 88-90
Jesuits. 46
Marco Polo, 4
Portuguese, 7
lln«
Scandinavians, 4
Spanish, 8
Expulsion of tho Rump by Cromwell,
179
Lambert. 190
Extravagance, charge of, against early
Stuart kings, 126
Failure of Puritan rule, 191-2
Fairfax, Sir Thomas Lord, 162-4,
167-8, 174
Farmer, 218
INDEX
358
Fawkes. Guy, 120
Felton. John. 145
Fenwick, Sir John. 248
Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, 30
II, Holy Roman Emperor, 138
III, Holy Roman Emperor.
King of Aragon, 14. 19, 23-7,
257
44
p'errars, Robert, Bishop of St. Davids,
64
Feudal dues, 125. 130, 194
Field of the Cloth of Gold, 28
Fifth-monarchy men, 179
Finance, national, 234-6
Fines, 20, 21, 68, 70-2, 117, 125
for recusancy, 68, 70-2, 117
Fire of London, 204, 210
Fire-ships at Calais, 98
Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester
and Cardinal. 53
Fishing industry, 85, 225
Fitzgeralds, the, 101-5
Five members, attempted arrest of
the, 158
Mile Act, 202
Flag of Great Britain, 274
Flanders, 27. 75, 86
Fleetwood, General, 189
Fleurus, battle of, 244
Flight of James II. 222
Flodden, battle of, 26, 76
Florence, 15
Florida, 9
Flying squadron, 2<3
Forced loan, 143-4
Foreign bishops, appointment of, to
the English Church. 48
policy of Charles I, 140-4, 147
Charles II, 202-13
Cromwell, Oliver, 184-6
Cromwell, Thomas, 29, 57
Elizabeth. 92-5
Henry VII. 22-4
Henry VIII. 24-9
James I, 134-8
James II. 220-3
William HI. 221-2. 243-6,
254-60 oo
Wolsey, 32-4
Fort William, 224
Fotheringay Castle, 84
Fox, Ricnard, Bishop of Winchester,
France 11. 13-16. 22-30, 33, 41-2,
65 69 75-8, 81-2. 92-5, 135-6.
141-5, 147. 165. 175, 179. 184-6.
200-3 205-6, 209. 213. 224-5. 230.
243-6. 274. 280
Franchise, 106 o n o, r 7
Francis I, King of France, 26-30, 34, 5/
II, King of France, i i
KSricf: 1 Elector Palatine. 131.
Frio 6 trade 7 ’between ' England and
Scotland, 174
French East India Company.
Friars, 36 .
Frobisher, Martin, 90
Fronde, the, 179
Gama. Vasco da, 7
Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Win-
chester, 58, 62. 63
Garnett, Henry, 120-1
Gascon wine-merchants, 85
Gascony, 25
General Assembly of the Church of
Scotland, 151-2, 157, 269
Councils of the Church, 38
of the Jesuits, 45
of the New Model Army, 162
Geneva, 42, 73, 77
Genoa, 4, 6
Geographical discoveries, 3
George I, 252, 283-4
II, 283
— , Prince of Denmark, 250
Geraldines, the, 101-5
Gibraltar, 262, 264
, Straits of, 4, 6
Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, 90
Gilds, xxii. 60
Ginkel, 239
Glasgow, 151, 269
Glastonbury. last Abbot of, 56
Glencoe, massacre of, 238, 271
Gloucester, Duko of, son of Charles 1,
169
, siege of, 161
, William, Duke of, 251, 272
Godden, 217
Godfrey, Sir Edmiindsbury, 210
“ Godly men.” rule of, 180
Godolphin, Sidney, Lord, 280-1
Goltlt'n Ilind 9 88
Goldsmiths, 207 .
Gold, West African trade in, t
Gondomar, 138
Good Hope, Cape of, 7, 9
Gordon, Lady Catherine, 18, 19
Government. Instrument of, i»o--,
183. 184. 186. 189. 190. 278
Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount
Dundee, 237
Granada, 14
Grand remonstrance, 157-3
Gravelines, battle of, 99
Great Britain, King of, 1-9, -68
Contract, 130
Council in Anglo-Saxon times,
47
intercourse, 22
rebellion, 160-5
Greek Church, 35, 37, 40 atudr
language and literature, stu y
° f ’ New Testament, xxlv, 36, 39
40 , ,
Greenland, discovery of, 4
Grenville, Sir Richard, 99
Grey, Lady Jane, 62-5 .... _
Grindal, Edmund, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 74
Guiana, expedition to, 137
Guinea Company, 228
Guinegatto, battle of. 26, /5
Guise family, 76-7, 81
, Mary of, 76-8 ..
Gunnery, English, against tuo
Armada, 9H _ „ 9in
Gunpowder Plot, 120-1, 123, 210
INDEX
359
Habeas Corpus Act, 211
Hague, The, 176
Hales’s Case, 217 „ ,
Halifax, Charles Montagu, Earl of,
248-y
, George Savilo, Earl of, 212
Hamburg, 6
“ Hammer of the Monks, 5/
Hammond, Colonel. 167-8
Hampden, John, 148, 161
Hampton Court, 31, 34, 167-8
Court Conference, 119
Hanover, Elector of (George I), 261
Hanoverians, 252
House merchants, 85
Hapsburg family, 13
Harbour improvement, 85
Harley, Robert, Earl of Oxford, 282-4
Hawkins. Sir John, 86-7, 98-9, 135,
185, 230
Hayti, discovery of, 8
Headship of the English Church,
47-52, 62-5, 69-70
Heads of the proposals, 167
Henrietta Maria, 141, 156, 169
, Duchess of Orleans, 169, 205
Henry II, 100
VI, 22
VII, 10, 17-24, 28, 31, 6G. 75,
85, 100-1, 122, 124, 150
VIII, 23-30. 48-65, 67, 70,
76, 78, 85, 92. 101-2, 109, 122,
150, 241
II, King of France, 30
HI, King of France, 93
IV, King of Franco. 95, 135-6,
141, 201, 220 _
the Navigator, Prince, 7
Herbert, Admiral. Lord Torrington,
243
Hercules, pillars of, 4
Hereditary succession, 114, 256
, indefeasible, 256
Heretics, burning of, 44-5, 63-5
Herodotus. 4
Hertford, Edward Seymour, Earl of,
and Duke of Somerset, 58-61, 76-7
High Commission, Court of, 150,
156
■ Court of Justice. 169
Highlands of Scotland, 16, 237, 271
Hill, Abigail. 282
History of the Great Rebellion, 205
Holbcach House, 120
Holland, 14, 119, 176, 196, 202, 206,
208, 216, 220-1, 223-5, 233, 243-6,
253. 258, 2G1-2, 264
HoLmby House. 166-7
Holy League, 25
■ , war of the, 25-6
Holy Homan Empire. 12, 15, 29,
39-42, 44, 46, 135-8. 179-80,
201-2, 220-1, 243, 246, 256, 261-7
Holyrood Palace, 79, 82
Honduras, discovery of, 8
Hooper, John, Bishop of Gloucester,
64
Hopton, Sir Ralph, 161-4
Horn. Cape, 90, 228
Hough, Dr., 218
Hounslow, 220
House of Commons. 10G-9, 120, 122,
131-2, 155-9, 187, 208, 212, 213.
232-3, 249-50, 260. 274, 282
Lords, 106-9, 120. 131, 155,
171, 187, 194, 209, 212, 232-3.
274, 282 „ ,
Howard of Effingham, Charles, Lord,
98—9
■ , Thomas, Duko of Norfolk
(f. Elizabeth), 82-3
, Thomas, Duke of Norfolk
(f. Henry VI II), 56-8
, Thomas, Earl of Surrey and
Duke of Norfolk (f. Floddcn). 76
Hudson’s Bay Company, 228
Territory, 264
Huguenots, 93. 95. 135, 220
Hull, 6
Humble petition and advice, 186-7
Hundred Years War, 22
Hungary. 12
Hurst dastle, 169
Hyde, Edward. Earl of Clarendon,
190-1, 195, 197, 202-5
Iceland, discovery of. 4
Impeachment, 107, 131, 252
Imbeachments:
Bacon, Francis, Lord Chancellor,
131
Buckingham, George Villiera, Duke
of. 143
Danby, Sir Thomas Osborne, Earl
of, 211
Laud, William, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 153
Middlesex, Lionel Cranflcld, Earl
of. 132
Strafford, Sir Thomas Wentworth,
Earl of. 153-5
Impeachments in the Middle Agos,
107. 131
Imperial cities, free, 12
Import duties. 125, 129-30
Impositions, new, 129
“ Incident.” the, 157
Indefeasible hereditary right, 250
Indemnity and Oblivion, Act of, 196
Independence of judges, 251-2
Independents, 73, 166-70, 171, 1$3, 196
India, 4, 6-8, 225
Company, East, 175. 203,
224-5, 228
Indian Ocean, 175, 228
Indies, 8-9
, East, 9, 224-5
. West, 9, 172, 216, 226, 256, 272
Indirect taxation, 129, 230
Indulgence, Declaration of, 1672;
207-8, 219
, 1687 (1st), 218
. 1687 (2nd), 219. 222
Indulgences, 36, 39-40
Industries, colonial, 226
Infanta Maria, 137-8
Informers, 210
Inquisition, 44, 46
■, Papal, 44
, Spanish, 44, 184-5, 254
Institutes, The, 41
INDEX
360
Instrument of government, 180-2,
183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 278
Intercursus Magnus, 22
Malus, 22
Interlopers, 228-30
Inventions, xxiv
Inverary, 238
Invitation to William of Orange,
220, 248
Ipswich, 31
Ireland, 18. 100-5. 154, 172, 186,
210, 238-9, 242. 243-4, 276-9
Ireton, Henry, 172, 195, 277
Irish army, 155, 276-7
Brigade in French army, 239
linen industry, 276
revolts, 101-5. 277-9
Irishry, 100-1
Irish septs, 100
Ironsides. 161-2, 167, 195
Isabella, Queen of Castile, 8, 14, 23, 27
Italian art and literature, xv
Italy. 15, 16, 22-3, 24-6, 37. 43, 44
Ivory, West African trade in, 7
Jacobites. 237, 247-8, 274
Jamaica, 8, 186, 193. 226, 272
James I (James VI of .Scotland), 24,
79-80, 104. 113, 115, 117-38, 150,
175,210,251
II (James VII of Scotland),
169. 204. 207-12, 215-23, 232-40,
242. 243. 246. 247, 259, 268.
278-9. 280 A ^
IV, King of Scotland, IS, 19,
23-4. 26. 7 5-G, 78
V, King of Scotland, 7G
Prince of Wales, the Pretender,
220. 222, 233, 259, 264, 283-4
Jamestown. 225
Jane Grey, Lady, 62. 65
Seymour, 60, 61
Jeffreys. George, Chief Justice, 216
Jesuit exploration, 46 _
missionaries, 45, 72
Jesuits, the, 45, 46, 72, 83, 94, 1-0,
209-11
Jews, 44, 182
Joanna of Castile, 23, 27
John, King. 47
Joseph I. Holy Roman Emperor, 263
Ferdinand. Electoral Prince
of Bavaria. 257-8
Joyce. Cornet. 167
Judges, bribery of, 131
, independence of, 2ol-2
, removal of, 251-2
Julius II, Pope, 23, 25, 28, 33
Junto, the, 249-50
Justice, High Court of. 169
Juxon, William, Bishop of London
and Archbishop of Canterbury. 1/0,
196
Kctt, Robert, 67
Kildare, Earls of. 101-2
KJlliecrankie, battle of, 23<
King of Great Britain, 129, 268
Ireland, 102, 105
King’s Bench, Court of, 251
, County, 102
Kinsale, 238-9
Kirk o’ Field, 79
Knighthood, 148
Knox, John, 77
Ladrone Islands, 9
La Hogue, battle of, 244, 246
Lambert, General, 190
Lambeth Palace, 219
Lancastrians, 17
Land bank. 249
Landen, battle of, 244
Landowners, liability of. to pay
feudal dues. 125, 130. 194
land-tax, 194, 249
Land question, settlement of, in
1660; 196
tax, 194, 249
Langside, battle of, SO
Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of Worcester,
59-64
Latin, xxii
Laud, William, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 121, 149-50, 154, 162, 19b.
268 . , ,
Lauderdale, John Maitland, Earl of
198, 205, 270
Lawful sports, 150
Law of the Constitution, 250
Laws, passing of new, 106-8, 123 -j
L eague, Holy, 25
, Holy, war of the, 2o-G
of Augsburg, 221-3, 240, 243
of Augsburg, war of the, 243-o,
254
of Cambray, 24
of Cambray, war of the, 24
, Protestant, formed by Henry
IV, 135-7
Learning, the new, 58-61
, the old, 58-00
Legate, papal, 31, 54
Leicester Abbey. 34 , Q .
, Robert Dudley, Earl of, 94
Leinster, 101
Leith. 78 , ^ , in *>
Leix and Offaly, plantation of, 19-
Lennox, Earl of, 80
Lenten fast, discontinuance or, t>i
Leon, Ponce dc, 9 _
Leopold I. Holy Roman Emperor,
256-7, 263
Leslie, Alexander, 151
, David. 174, 270
Letters, casket, 82
Levant, 6, 260
Company, 228
Levellers, the, 172
Lcven. Loch, 80
Licence to beg, 67
Lighthouses and lightships, oo
Lilly, 49
Lima, 88
Limerick, siege of, 239
, treaty of, 239 ... , JrtP
Lincoln. Bishop and DeAn of. olscy
os, 31 _ ,
Linen industry in Ireland, 2 <o
INDEX
361
Lisbon, 96, 99
Little Parliament. 180
Loan, forced, 143-4
Loch Leven, 80
Lollards, 38, 48, 63
London, Bishops of:
Bancroft. Richard, 121
Bonner, Edmund, 62-3
Qrindal. Edmund, 74
Juxon, William, 170, 196
Laud. William, 121. 149-50. 154.
162, 196, 268
Ridley, Nicholas, 64
Sheldon, Gilbert, 196
Longitudinal route to India, 271
Lord Deputies of Ireland. See
Deputies, Lord, of Ireland
Lord of Ireland, 100
“ Lords of the World," 12, 115
Lords, Douse of, 106-9, 120, 131, 155,
171, 187, 194, 209, 212. 232-3,
274, 282
Lords of tho Congregation, 77
Louis XII, King of Franco, 26
XIII, King of Franco, 135,
141, 257
XIV, King of France, 135, 185,
200-3, 205-9, 211, 213, 216, 220-3.
239-40, 243-6, 249, 253, 254-67
Lowestoft, battle of, 204
Lowlands of Scotland, 16, 237
, ravaging of the. 76
Loyola, Ignatius, 45
Ludlow, Edmund, 277
Lumbering in the Colonies, 226
Lutherans, 39, 41. 42, 49
Luther. Martin, 39-41, 42, 49
Luxemburg, Marshal, 244
Lyme Regis, 216
Macdonald clan, 238
Maclan, 238
Mackay, Hugh, 237
Madras, 224
Madrid, 138, 256, 262
Magdalen College, Oxford, 218
Magellan, 9
Magnus Intercursus, 22
Maidstone, 168
Main, Spanish, 68. 87-8, 93. 99
Major-Generals, 184
Malignants, 181
Malplaquet,
_ ..... battle of, 262-3
Mai us intercursus, 22
Manchester, Earl of, 164
Mansfeld. 138
Mar, Earl of. 80
Marco Polo, 4
Mardyck, 265
Margaret of York, Duchess of Bur
gundy, 14, 18. 19, 22
Theresa, 256-7
* Tudor, Queen of Scotland, 24
„ 75-6, 78
Maria Antonia, 257
, Empress, 257
, Infanta, 137
Theresa, 256
Marie de Medici, 135
of Neuburg, 259
Marignano, battle of, 26-7
Mariner's compass, xxlv
Maritime activity, English, 85-91
Alps, 135-6
powers, 243, 261
Marlborough. John Churchill, Duko
of, 239, 260-3, 273. 280-1
, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of,
280. 282
Marriage negotiations, Arthur. Prince
of Wales and Catherine of Aragon, 23
, Charles I and tho Infanta
Maria, 131, 137-8, 140
, Edward VI ami Mnry Stuart,
» 0
— , Elizabeth, 93
, Henry VII and Joanna, 23
— of priests, 61-2, 70
Marriages, royal, importance of, 23,
75, 137
Marseilles, 4
Marsiu, Marshal, 262
Marston Moor, 195
, battle of, 162
Mary I, Queen of England, 29-30, 33,
42, 53, 62-4. G8. 7U, 71. 73, 77, 92,
93 102
Mary II, Queen of England, 209,
220, 233—1, 248, 250
BSSfifeirf Charles I. V76
, Ducncss of Burgundy, 13, 14,
18. 27
Maryland, 226
Mary of Guise, 76-8
Modena, 220
Mary Stuart., Queen of Scots, 73,
76-84, 92-4, 96, 117, 122
Tudor, Queen of France, 26
Mas ham, Mrs., 282
Massachusetts, 225
Massacre of Amboy na, 175, 176, 225
Irish Protestants, 277
Masses for the dead, 60
Mass. Latin, 51, 59, 62, 82
Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor, 137
Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor,
13, 14, 24-6, 27
Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria,
257, 260-1
Maycnco, Elector (Archbishop) of, 13
Mavflowtr, 119
Mazarin. Cardinal, 184
Medici, Mario de, 135
Medina Sidonia, Duke of, 96
Mediterranean, 4, 19, 12, 14, 15, 27,
256, 260
Members of Parliament, bribery of,
199, 208
Merchant adventurers, 228
Mexican treasure mines, 126, 256
Middle Ages, castles in the, 20
, education In tho, xxii
, impeachments in tho, 131
— . knowledge of the world in
the, 3
, navigation in the, 4
, Parliament in the, 106
, trade in the, 4, 85
, unity of the Church in the, 35,
40, 43
INDEX
362
Milan, 15, 2G, 28, 256, 258-9, 262, 264
Militia, 158
Millenary petition, 119
Milton, John, 1S5
Ministers, choice of, 127, 250
Minorca, 262, 264
Missions, Douai. 72, 83-4
, Jesuits, 45, 72
Mob, London, 155, 212
Modern history, xxi
Monarchy, abolition of the. 171, 178
Monasteries, condition of the, 55
, decay of the, 54
, dissolution of, by Henry VIII.
55-60
-, final dissolution of, by Eliza-
beth, 70
, importance of, 53-4
, Irish, dissolution of, 102
*, restoration of, by Mary, 63
Monastic charity, 54, 66-7
property, disposal of, 55-7, 85
property, disposal of, in Ire-
land. 102
wealth, 55
Monk, George, Duke of Albemarle,
175. 190-1, 204, 270
Monopolies, 125, 132, 147, 228
declared to be illegal. 132
Monopoly, Venetian, of oriental trade,
6
Montagu, diaries, Earl of Halifax,
248, 249 T _ t ,
Montrose, James Graham, Earl of,
164, 174, 269
Moors in Spain, 14, 44
Moray, Earl of. 80
More. Sir Thomas, 53
Morton, Earl of, 30
, John, Archbishop of Canter-
bury and Cardinal, 21
Morton's Fork, 21
Moscow, 90 _ .
Mountjoy. Charles Blount, Lord, 104
Mousehole! Heath, 67
Munster, plantation of, 104
Muscovy Company, 90, 228
Mutiny Act, 236
Namur, 244-6
Nantes, Edict of. 9o, 220
Naples, 15, 24, 27, 256, 258, 262, 264
Narrow seas, 176
Naseby, battle of, 164
Natal, 7
National Debt, 249 r
Natural boundaries of France, iso-o
Navigation Acts, 176, 193, 198, 203,
227, 270
in the Middle Ages, 4
marks, 85
Navigator, Prince Henry the. 1
Navy, 85, 96, 140, 164-5
, French, 243
Neerwinden, battle of, 244
Negro slavery, 7. 86-7, 225, 2*-6, -31
Netherlands, 6, 12-13, 14, 18. 22, -4,
42, 46, 66, 68, 83-4, 80, 93-9,
201
, Austrian, 264
Netherlands, revolt of the, 6S, 83, 93-5,
96-9
, Spanish, 201, 205, 256, 258,
261-2, 264
New Albion, 88
Amsterdam, 204
Newark, 164, 166
Newburn, battle of, 152
Newcastle, Earl of, 161-4
New England, 225-6
Newfoundland, 10, 85, 90, 225, 264
New impositions, 129
Jersey, 204
learning, 58-61
Newmarket, 167
New Model Army, 162-76, 178-9, 184,
186-7, 189-90, 194
Newton Butler, battle of, 239
, Sir Isaac, 217
New World, 10, 16, 46, 86, 230
York. 204
Nijmegen, Treaty of, 207, 209, 246
Nineteen Propositions, 159, 167
Nobles, power of, before Tudor period,
20
Nonconformists, 197
Non-jurors, 247—8
Non-parliameutary rule of Charles I,
Non-resLstance of people to king, 113
Norfolk, rebellion in, 67-8
, Thomas Howard, Duke of
(/. Elizabeth). 62-3 ^ ,
, Thomas Howard, Duke of
(/. Henry Vill), 56, 58
Norman conquest, 277
nobles in Ireland, 100
North Carolina, 226
council of the, 57, 149-50, 156
North-East passage to India, 90
Northern earls, rising of the, 8-
North of England, Catholic feeling in
the, 56, 82
Northumberland, Earl of, 8-
. John Dudley. Duke of, 61-2, 1 7
North-West passage to India, 99
Norwich, 67
Nottingham, 160
Nova Scotia, 264
Oates, Titus, 209-11, 216-17
Oath of supremacy, 247 ^
Obedience due to king from people
113
Occasional conformity. 281
Ocean, the, 3
O’Connors, the, 102 9
Offaly, plantation of Leix and. 19-
Old colonial system, 228
Old learning, 58-60
O' Mores, the, 102 ini
O’Neill, Hugh, Earl of Tyrone. 104,
276
revolts, 104, 2ib
, Shane, 104
Orange, William II, Prince of. 178. 206
. William III. Prince of. 1M.
194, 206, 203, 212-13, 220-3. 23--*>3
258-60, 271. 278, 280
Ordinances, 131
INDEX
Orinoco, 137
Orleans, Henrietta, Duchess of, 169,
205
Ormond, Earldom of, 101
, James Butler, Duke of (f.
Anne), 263, 283
. James Butler, Duke of ((.
Charles I and Charles 11). 172,
277-8
Orthodox Church, 35, 37. 40
Osborne, Sir Thomas, Earl of Dauby,
208-11
Other House, the, 187
Oudenarde, battle of, 262
Oxford, xxiii, 31, 32, 160, 161, 164, 195,
212, 215, 217-18
Parliament, 212-13, 216
reformers, 48-9
, Robert Harley, Earl of, 282-4
Pacific Ocean. 9. 87-8, 228. 271
Palatinate, the, 138, 222. 243
PalAtine, Elector (Count). 13
Palatine, Frederick. Elector, 131,
136-8, 147. 164. 175, 251
Pale, the, 100
Pamphlets, Puritan, 74
Panama Canal, 27 1-2
, Isthmus of, 9, 87-8. 271
Papal appointments in England, 48
— Inquisition, 44
legato, 31. 54
states, 15, 24, 37
Papists, 71-2, 81-4. 102, 115. 117-18,
120-1, 128, 181-2, 205-11, 215-23.
226, 251, 277-9
• , exclusion of, from the throne,
251
Pardons, sale of, 36
Parish, support of poor by, 68
Parker, Bishop of Oxford, 218
, Matthew, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 73-4
Parllamcut, 32, 106-9, 122-7, 128-33.
140-6, 154-9, 160-71, 178-84,
186-7, 189-91, 193-5, 197-200,
202-5, 207-9, 21 1-16, 218-20, 232-6,
240-1. 247-53. 269-70, 273-4,
281-3
after the Revolution, 240-1
Parliamentary Test Act, 211
Parliament, constitution of, 106, 109
in tno Middlo Ages, 106
, Irish, 100-1
, powers of, 106-7, 123-4, 129
■, privileges of, violation of, 145,
158
, procedure of, 107
, rarity of meeting of, 107-9,
122-7, 132-3
Parliaments:
Addled, 131
Barebones, 180
Cavalier, 193-9, 202-11
Charles I — 1st, 141-2
, 2nd, 142-3
. 3rd, 144-6
. 4th (Short), 152
— 5th (Long). 154-9, 171, 190,
193-4, 198-9
Parliaments — continued
Charles II— 1st (Cavalier), 193-9,
202-11
, 2nd. 211-12
. 3rd, 212
. 4th (Oxford). 212-13, 216
Henry VII, 17
VIII, early, 32
Irish, 1689; 238
, 1695; 239
James I — 1st. 128-30
, 2nd (Addled), 131
, 3rd, 131-2
, 4th, 132
a Little, 180
Long. 154-9, 171. 190, t93-4, 198-9
Oxford. 212-13, 216
Pension, 199
Protectorate, 1st. 183-4. 193
. 2nd. 186-7. 193
. 3rd. 189, 193
Reformation, 49-50, 107
Short. 152
Parliament, Scottish, 271, 273-4
under Elizabeth, 108-9
Parma, Alexander, Duke of, 96
Partition Treaty, first. 258
, second, 258-60, 263
Party government, 250
Pasture land. 66
Patriarch of Constantinople. 35
Paul IV, Pope, 65
Pauper children, apprenticeship of,
68
Pauperism, 68
Pnviu, battle of, 28
Peers, Council of, 152
, Scottish, in the House of Lords,
274
, twelve new Tory, creation of, by
Queen Anne, 282
Pelican, 88
Penn, Admiral. 180
Pennsylvania. 226
Penn. William. 226
Pension Parliament, 199
Pensions to monks aud nuns, 56-7
Percy, Thomas, 120
Persecution by Calvin, 42
Puritans in North America,
119
of Huguenotsin France, 45
Lollards. 38, 63
Protestants in England, 45,
59-60, 63-5
Protestants in Scotland, 77,
198, 270
• Protestants in the Netherlands
45, 64. 86
tno Vaudois. 185
Persia, 8
Persian Gulf, 6
Perth, 77
Peruvian treasure mines, 88, 126
Peter’s Pence, 102
Petition of Right, 144-5, 147
Philip. Archduko (Philip I, King of
Spain), 27
II. King of Spain, 30, 65, 69
84. 86-7, 92-9, 102
IV, King of Spain, 257
INDEX
364
Philip V, King of Spain (Duke of
Anjou), 257-66
Philiphaugh, battle of, 164
Philippine Islands, 256
Philipstown, 102
Philosopher’s stone, xxili
Pilgrimage of Grace, 56
Pilgrim Fathers. 119, 225
Pilgrim's Progress , 202
Pillars of Hercules. 4
Pinkie, battle of. 76
Pioneers, colonial, 225-6
Piracy, 68. 86-8, 93-4, 96, 149, 230,
260'
Plague, the Great, 204
Plantation of Connaught, proposed,
277
Leix and Offaly, 102
Munster, 104
Ulster, 104, 276
Plantations, 225
Plots against Elizabeth, 72, 82-4
Plunder under religious pretext. 60-2
Plymouth, 225
(North America), 119
Pole, Reginald, Archbishop of Canter-
bury and Cardinal, 63, 65, 73
Ponce’ de Leon. 9
Poor, collections for, in churches, 68
Law, 68
-rate ,68
, support of, by parish, b»
Pope, recognition of, in England, 47
, rule of, in English Church, 4 1-8
Popes:
Alexander III, 37
VI. 36
Clement VII, 28
Julius II, 23-5. 28. 33
Paul IV, 65
Popes, reforming. 43
Pope, the, 15. 37, 4 7-9
Popish Plot, 209-11. 216
Porto Bello, 231, 264
. Carrero, Archbishop of Toledo
and Cardinal, 259
Portugal, 7, 10-11, 14, 90, -03, 2-4
Poynings* Law\ 101
Poynings. Sir Edward. 101
Prayer, Book of Common, 61. 62, /U,
0-2. 197. 269
Preachers of Protestantism xn Eng-
land, 62
Prelatists, 181-3
Presbyterians, English, 118, lb 2,
166-70,183.196.269
, Scottish, 78-80, lli— 18, 150
151. 157. 161-4. 237 268
President of the Council of the Isorth,
57, 149
Preston, battle of, 108 .
Prices, rising, in Tudor and Stuart
periods, 126
Pride, Colonel, 169
Pride's purge, 169
Priest-holes, 72
Priests, marriage of, 61-2, i0_
Prince Henry the Navigator, /
Printing, invention of, xxiv, *>4
Privilege of Parliament, 145, 158
Privy Council, 252
Proclamations, 108
Propositions, Nineteen, 159, 167
Protectorate, 181-90
Protector, Edward Seymour, Duke o
Somerset, 58-61, 76-7
, Oliver Cromwell. 161-4, 167-8,
172-5, 178-89, 195, 2G9-70, 277
•. Richard Cromwell, 189
Protestant feeling in England, growth
of, 58, 64-5
Protestantism, 30. 40-2, 51, 60-2,
77, 84, 93. 95. 135-8, 151, 254
Protestant league, 135-7
preachers in England, 62
Protestants, 10, 41, 44-6. 49, 58-65,
69. 73-4, 77-80, 86, 95, 117, 13,,
144, 185
Prussia, 12, 264
Purgatory, 36
Puritan rule, failure of, 191-2
Puritans, 42, 73-4. 115, 117-19, 1-1,
145. 149-50, 157, 161-70, 171-92,
196-7. 202 207. 241
Puritan settlers in Ireland, 17-, 198,
278
Pym, John, 156
Pyrenees, 135
, Treaty of the, 136, 2oG
Quakers. 226
Queens Consort of England:
Anne Bolevn, 50. 53, 78, 92
Anne of Cleves. 29, 57
Catherine of Aragon, 19, 23, -8.
49-50, 53. 78
Catherine of Braganza, 203
Elizabeth of York. 17-18. 23
Henrietta Maria. 141, 156, 169
Jane Seymour, 60-1
Mary of Modena. 220
Queen’9 County, 102
Queens, foreign:
Anne of Austria. 25 1
Anne of Brittany, 14
Margaret Theresa. 256-7
Margaret Tudor, 24, 75-6, 78
Maria (Empress), 257
Maria Theresa, 256
Marie de Medici, 135
Marie of Neuburg. 259
Mary of Guise, 67-8
Marr Stuart, 73. 76-34. 92-4, 90.
117, 122
Mary Tudor, 26
Queens Regnant ofEngimm. ,
Anne, 185. 222. 234. 250. 260. 204,
Mary I. 2 »- 30 4, i3 A, 42 ;,, 53 io-
Raleigh. Sir Walter, 88. 137
Ram lilies, battle of, 26-
Ravcnna, battle of, 26
INDEX
365
Reading, last Abbot of, 56
Reading the Bible, 59
Rebellion, Desmond, 104-5
, Great, 160-5
in Devonshire, 61
Rebellion in Netherlands, 68, 83,
93-5, 96-9
in Norfolk, 67-8
in Yorkshire, 56
, Kildare, 101-2
of Argyll, 216
of Monmouth. 216
— of Northern Earls, 82
Rebellions in Ireland, 101-5. 277-9
, O’Neill, 104, 276
Recusancy, 70
fines, 68, 70-2
Red Sea, 6
Reformation, xxiv. 32, 39—14, 46-52,
77-8, 95-6, 102, 109, 135, 26S
Parliament, 49-50, 107
Reform Bill (Rump), 178-9
Reformers, Oxford. 48-9
Reforming cardinals, 43
popes. 43
Regencies:
Council for Edward VI, 60-1
Lennox, Earl of, 80
Mar, Earl of, 80
Margaret Tudor, 76
Mary of Guise. 76-8
Moray, Earl of, 80
Morton, Earl of, 80
Somerset, Duke of. 61, 76-7
Warwick, Earl of, 61-2
Regicides, punishment of, 195
Regulation of trade, 129
Religion, wars of, 46, 267
Religious settlement, Elizabeth's,
69-74
Rcmonstrnnco. Grand, 157-8
Renaissance, the, xxiii-xxiv, 39
Renunciations, 256-7
Rescissory Act (Scottish), 197
Restoration in Ireland, 198
In Scotland, 197-8
. the, 191, 270
Rotainere, 20
Retinues, baronial, 20, 66
Revenge, 99
Revenue of the Crown, 124-5, 147-9,
194, 216, 234
Rovolt of the Netherlands, 68, 83,
93—5, 96-9
Revolution of 1689; 232-42, 270-1
Rholms, 72
Rhino, tho, 135-6. 201
Rhode Island, 225
Richard III, 17-18, 21
Richelieu, Cardinal, 143-4, 201
Richmond. 29
Ridley, Nicholas, Bishop of London,
64
Ridolfl plot, 83
Right, Claim of, 237
, Declaration of, 234
— rr* Divine, of Kings, 113-16, 201,
232-3, 240,247.282 ’
— — , petition of. 144-5, 147
Rights, Bill of, 234, 250-1, 280
Rlpon, pacification of, 152
Rising of tho Northern Earls, 82
Rivalry of Elizabeth and Mary Stuart ,
72-3, 78-9, 80-4, 90
France and Spain, 27-30
Rivers, importance of. 227
Rfzzio, David, 79
Rochelle, expedition, 1 4 4 -5
Roman Catholics, 71-2, 81-4, 102,
115, 117-18, 120-1, 128, 181-2,
205-11, 215-23, 220, 201, 277-9
Empire, xxi, 12, 35
, Eastern, 12
, Holy. 12, 15, 29. 30, 42. 44.
46. 135-8, 179-80, 201-2, 220 1.
243, 246, 256, 261-7
, Western, 12
Rome. 28. 33. 34. 36, 38, 39. 42, 48,
50, 63. 64, 69. 107
, Court of, 50
Rooke. Sir George, 262
Root and Branch Bill, 157
Roses, Wars of the. 15, 20. 67
Rouen, 6
Routes to India. 6, 7, 9, 10. 90, 271
Rovers, Channel, 86-7, 93. 94, 96
Royal marriages, importance of, 23,
75, 137
Royalties, 132, 147
Rump, the, 171. 176, 178-9, 189-90
193
Rupert. Prince, 161. 162, 104, 171, 228
Russell, Admiral, 244, 249
. Lord. 213-14
Russia Company, 90, 228
In the Aliddle Ages, 4.12
Rye House plot, 213
Ryewick. Treaty of, 246, 249. 256.
258, 259
Sachevorell, Dr. Henry, 282
Sack of Romo, 33-4
St. Albans, Abbot of. Wolsev os, 31
St. Andrews, 77
St. Andrews, Archbishops of:
Beaton, David, Cardinal, 77
Sharp, James, 198, 270
St. Augustine, 47, 51
St. Davids, Robert Ferrars, Bishop
of, 64
St. Germain, 259
St. John, Henry, Viscount Boling-
broke, 282-4
St. Kitts, 226
St. Martin, Fort, 144
St. Paul’s Cathedral, 204, 282
~ - — School, 49
St. Peter. 37, 115
St. Peter's Church, Rome, 39
St. Quentin, battle of, 30
Hidh, French general, 239
Salisbury, Sir Robert Cecil, Earl of,
Sancroft. William, Archbishop of,
*15, *19. 247
San Jnan do Ulloa, 87
Santa Cruz, 186
San Thome, 137
Sardinia, 256, 264
Savoy conference, 196
, Duke of, 185, 264
INDEX
366
Saxony, 39-40
, Elector (Duke) of. 13, 39, 41
Scandinavia, 42
Scandinavian explorers, 4
Schism In the papacy, 38
Schomberg. Marshal, 239
Schools, monastic, xxii
Science in the Middle Ages, xxii
Scoue, 174, 269
Scotland, 16, 42, 75-84, 92-5, 118,
129, 139, 150-2, 155, 157, 164.
172-5, 186, 197-8, 236-8, 242,
268-75
and England, Union of, 129,
139. 273-5
. Church of, 73. 78. 118,
150-2, 157, 197, 237, 268-74
Scottish invasions of England — 1513;
26, 76
, 1640; 152
, 1644; 162
, 1648; 168
. 1651; 174-5
Scottish Prayer Book, 150-2, 197, 269
Second Civil War, 168, 172
Sectaries, 73, 117
Security, Act of, Scottish, 273-4
Sedgemoor, battle of, 216
Self-denying Ordinance. 162
Seminary priests, 72, 83-4
Separatists, 73, 117
Serfdom, 66 . , , _ _
Settlement, Act of, 1661, Irish, 198.
238, 278, 283
, 1701; 251-3, 264, 272, 2/4
, Elizabeth's religious. 69-74
— of affairs after the Restoration,
193-9
Seven bishops, trial of the, 219
Seville, 86, 230 ,
Seymour, Edward, Duke of somerset,
58-61, 76-7 _
— , Jane, 60, 61
Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley ( ooper,
Earl of. 205-13
Sharp, James. Archbishop or St.
Andrews, 198, 270
Sheep-farming, 66-8
Sheerness, 222 . .
Sheldon, Gilbert, Archbishop of
Canterbury, 196 „
•• Shield of the Counter-Reformation.
44
Shipbuilding in the colonies, 226
Ship-money, 148, 152, 156
Shire courts, 20
Short Parliament. 152
Shorell, Sir Cloudesloy. 262
Shrewsbury, Duke of, 281
Sicily, 256, 264
Sidney, Algernon. 214
-, Sir Henry, 104
Sieges:
Colchester, 168
Derry', 259
Enniskillen, 239
Gloucester, 161
Limerick, 239
Rochelle, 144-5
York, 162
Simnol , Lambort 17-18,101
Six Articles, statute of, 59-62
Skefflngtou, Sir William, 101
Slavery, 7, 86-7, 225, 226, 231
Slave trade, 7, 86-7, 265
Smyrna fleet, loss of, 244
Society of Jesus. 45-6
“ Soldiers of the Counter-Reforma-
tion,” 45
Solemn League and Covenant, 162,
269
Solway Moss, battle of, 76
Somers, John, Lord, 249
Somerset, Edward Seymour, Duke of,
58-61, 76-7
, Robert Carr, Earl of, 140
Sophia, Electress of Hanover, 251-2,
283
Southampton. 119
Soutli Carolina, 226
Sea Company, 265
Southwohl Bay, battle of, 207
Spain. 9-11. 14-16. 23-30, 44-6, 83-4,
86-90, 92-9, 109, 126, 128, 131. ,132,
134-8, 141-2, 147, 175. 184-b,
201-3, 209. 221, 224, 230-1, 243,
246. 254-67, 272 , .
Spanish ambassador, dismissal or, os,
94
colonial empire, 10. 27, 256
Inquisition, 44, 184-5, 254
Main. G8, 87-8. 93, 99
marriage, proposed, lor
Charles I. 131, 137 T 8, 140
possessions, 2. >6
succession. 254-67
treasure fleet, 10, 126, 14^
Spice Islands, 175
Spices from India, 6
Spurs, battle of. 26, 75 9 , n
Stadt holder, the Dutch. 176. 2°6, 240
Stanhope. General. Lord .26 -
Star Chamber, Court of. 20-1, 32, 15U.
State, Council of (Protectorate), 181
(Rump). 171, 178, 179
Statute of Drogheda, 101
Six Articles, 59-6-
Stcinkirk, battle of, 244
Stoko, battlo of. 18
JWS «—>>.
Earl of, 149, 154-6, 205. 276 »
ir«2' Ifio the Bill Of FJffh.o.
23 hereditary. 114. 256
iuffolk? I Charles Brandon, Duke of, 2i>
Sugar, cultivation of, 2-0
Supplies . appropriat ion of. -55 o
Supremacy. Act of, 1534, ju. a
Supremacy, 9 ’ struggle for between
Crown and Parliament, 1-- 7 »
••Supreme Governor of the Churcb^ 70
••Supreme Head of the Church. 50
Surplices, wearing of, by tnc citrg.
Surrender of the greater monasteries.
56
INDEX
367
• »
Surrey, Thomas Howard, Earl of, and
Duke of Norfolk, 76
Suspending power, 207, 218, 222, 234
Sussex, Earl of, 102
Sweden, 205
Swiss, the, 26
Switzerland, 12. 42
“ Sword of the Counter- Reformation,
44
Syrian route to India, 6
l'allard. Marshal. 261, 273
Tangier, 195, 203
Taunton, 216
Taxation, 106-9, 123-7, 129, 194,
235
Telescope, invention of the, xxiv
Test Act, 208, 217, 232
Tetzel, 39, 40
Texel, battle of the, 17G
Theatres, closing of the, 183
Thferouanne, capture of, 20
Thirty-nine Articles, 217
Thirty Years War, 46, 137-8, 151,
175, 184, 251
Throgmorton plot, 83, 94
Tilbury, 98
Tillotson. John, Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 247-8
Tobacco, production of, 226
Toleration. 119-20, 181, 190, 22G, 236,
Act, 236, 281
Tor Bay. 222
Tories, the. 214-18, 220-2. 232-3,
247-53, 200, 263, 265, 2S0-4
Torrington, Admiral Herbert, Lord.
243
Torture, 44
Toulon, attack upon, 244
Toumai, capture of, 26
Tourville, 243—1
Tower of London, 17, 18, 19, 62, 101,
m 137, 146, 154, 162, 216. 219
Towns, representation of, in Parlia-
ment, 106
Trade in the Middle Ages, 4, 85
regulation of, 129
— — with Spanish colonies in America,
86-7, 134-5, 184-5, 230-1, 260,
.su5— 7
Trading companies, 147, 224-5. 228-30
Translation of the Bible into English,
1540; 59
English, 1611; 119
— German, 41
Transportation of convicts. 220
Transubstantlatlon, 59, 2U8
Travellers, entertainment of, by
monasteries, 54
Tl 162?T9 2 8? , 213 108 ’ 143, 155> 15S ’
Treasure amassed by Henry YII, 21
fleet, Spanish, 10, 126, 142
~~ 86 2 54 ° m 160 NCW '* orld ' 10 - 4G -
Treasurer. Lord High, 132, 284
Treasure ship, capture of. by Drake,
OO
ships, capture of, by Blake, 186
Treaties:
Breda, 204
Cessation, 162, 277
Dover, 20G
Edinburgh, 78
Etaples. 22
Limerick, 239
Nijmegen. 207. 209, 246
Partition, first, 258
, second, 258-60, 263
Pyrenees, 186, 246
Ryswick, 246, 249, 256, 258. 259
Solemn League and Covenant, 162,
269
Utrecht, 263-7, 282
Westminster, 1654; 176
. 1674; 208
Westphalia, 180, 184
Trent, Council of. 43-4, 46
Tresham, Francis, 120
Treves, Elector (Archbishop) of, 13
Trial of Charles I, 168-70
Stratford, 154-5
the seven bi9hops, 219
Triennial Act. 1641; 156
. 1694; 248
Trinity House, 85
Triple Alliance, 1668; 205
Tromp, Van, 176
Tunnage and poundage, 125, 128,
141-2, 145, 147, 156-7, 194
Turcnne, Marshal, 186, 206. 244, 261
Turin, battle of, 262
Turkey Company, 228
Turkish Empire, 12
Turks, the, xxiii
Turnhain Green, 160
Tuscan ports, 250, 264
Tyburn, 19. 102, 195
Tyreouell. Richard Talbot, Earl of.
238, 278-9
Tyrol, 43
Tyrone Hugh O’NeiU, Earl of, 104,
276
Ulster, 100
— , plantation of, 104, 276
“Undertakers,” 130-1
Uniformity, Act of. 197, 202
Uniou of Castile and Aragon, 14
England and Scotland. 129,
139, 273-5
— England. Scotland, and Ire-
land under Cromwell, 175, 181, 191,
270, 278, 281
Unity of the Church in the Middle
Ages, 35, 40. 43
Universal solvent, xxiii
Universities, action with regard to,
by James II, 217-18
University of Cambridge, 217
Oxford. 217-18
Wlttenburg, 39-40 .
Usurping kings, 114
Utrecht, Treaty of, 263-7, 282
Vagabondage, 66-8
Van Tromp, 176
368
INDEX
85
matters ecclt-
Yaubau, 244
Vaudols, the, 185
Venables, 186
Ycndome, Marshal, 262
Venetian fleet, 6
Venetians, the, 6, 24-5,
Venezuela, 8
Venice, 4, 6, 15, 24-5
Vera Cruz, 87
Vespucci, Amerigo
M Vicar - General in
slastical,” 55
" Vicar of Bray/' 219
Vienna, 261
Villars, Marshal, 262
Villeroi, Marshal, 262
Villiers, George, 1st Duke of Bucking-
ham, 138, 140, 142-5. 155
, 2nd Duke of Buckingham,
205-6
Vinland, 4
Vireiuia, 88-90, 225, 226
Visitors of the monasteries, 54, 55
Wales, Princes of:
Arthur. 19, 23, 28, 49
Charles I. 137-8, 140
II, 169
Henry VIII, 23 _
James, son of James II, 220, 233
Walker, George, 239
Wallace, Sir William, 270
Waller, SI r William, 164
Walls of towns dismantled, 19o
Walpole, Sir Robert, 282
War beck, Perkin, 18-19, 2- 3,
Warrington, battle of, 168
Wars: A 4
Devolution. 205, 254
Dutch, 1G52-4 ; 176
1664-7; 203-4
1672-4 ; 20C-7 ^
English succession, 243-0
First bishops', 151-2
France, 1557-9; 65
’ and 7 Dutch, 1072-8; 206-9.
75.
254
and Spain. 1521-59; 28-30
and Spain, 1589-98 ; 95
and Spain, 1048 -j9; 175,
184-0
civil wars. 93, 95
Great Rebellion. 100-5
Holy League, 25-0
Hundred Years, 22
League of Augsburg, 243-6, 254
Cambray, 24
Netherlands, revolt of the, 46, 68,
83, 93-5, 90-9
Roses, 15. 20. 67
^ m ;
4 0 ? 94 -9 . 134.
Spanish succession. 231, 249 j0.
Thirty Years, 40. 137-8. 151 . 175,
184, 251
Wars of religion, 40, 207
Warwick, Edward Plautagenet, Earl
of, 17-19, 23
, John Dudley. 61-2, 77
Wealth of the Church, 37, 48
monasteries, 55
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, Earl of
Strafford, 149. 154-G, 205, 276-8
Wesley, John, 219
Samuel, 219
Western Church, 35
Roman Empire, 12
West Indies, 9. 172, 226, 250, 272
Westminster Abbey, 19, 21, 108, 195,
215
HaU, 169
last Abbot of, 108
Treaty of, 1654; 176
Treaty of, 1674: 208
Westmorland. Earl of. 82
Westphalia, Treaty of, 180, 184
Westward route to Asia, 8
Wexford, 172
Wharton, 249 ,, oon
Whigs, the. 201, 211-14, 215-17. 220,
232-7, 247-50, 260. 263, 2C5.
280—4
Will of Charles II of Spain, first, 258
, second, 259
Whipping of vagabonds, 07
Whitehall. 34. 156, 169. 219
White Hill, battle of the. 138
Whitgift. John. Archbishop of Cantei-
bury, 74. 121
Wigan, battle of, 1C8
WiDiam I, 124 , ^ ... „ nr>
II. Prince of Orange, 176, 200
HI 185, 194, 200, 208. 212-13,
220-3.232-53. 258-00, 271, 278.
280
Willoughby, Sir Hugh, 90
Wlmbledou, Sir Edward Cecil, Lord.
142
Winchester, Bishops of:
Amlrewcs, Lancelot, 1-1
Fox. Richard. 31
Gardiner, Stephen. 58, G2, 03
Wolscy, Thomas, 31
Winter. Thomas, 120
Wittenburg, 39-40 . Vn rU
Wolsey . Thomas. Archbishop of * ork
and Cardinal, £ 6-8, 3 1-4 H
Wool trade with the Netherlands. 18.
Worcester/battle of, 175. ‘ 21 °
Wren Sir Christopher, 204
Wright, John. 120
Wyeliffe, John, 38, 48
York. 34. 152
House, 31, 34
Yorkists, 17-18
York, Richard, Duke of. 18-1 J
Yorkshire, rebellion In,
York, siege of, 162
Zwingli, ClHch. 12
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11